Talk:Leeds/Archives/2009/January

Regarding the above

This does seem rather bizzare. For example if you compare it to another large northern city, Manchester, there is no seperate article for "City of Manchester". In comparison, how are to decide which parts are "Leeds" and which parts are not if you're just randomly including the city centre/core?

• Woodhouse Park, part of Manchester, or part of a mystical entity which desires the creation of a City of Manchester article?[1]
• Wetherby, part of Leeds, or part of a mystical entity which desires the creation of a City of Leeds article?[2]

There seems to be a rather strange amount of original research going on here. These two city articles should match up. IMO City of Leeds and Leeds need to be the same article, just as City of Manchester and Manchester are the same article. Owl Night (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Leeds isn't Manchester and Manchester isn't Leeds. The City of Manchester local authority area ONLY contains the settlement of Manchester, plus a tiny area at Ringway, so there's not much difference between the two, and not enough to have two articles. A more valid comparison is Leeds/City of Leeds and Bradford/City of Bradford.

The existence of the settlement "Leeds" is not even slightly original research (the usual cry of people who don't like something it seems), as the settlement of Leeds is defined and verifiable, for example by the Office for National Statistics (like on this map). Wetherby is a town within the City of Leeds local authority area, not Leeds itself, just as Huddersfield is a town within the Kirklees local authority area, not part of some mythical settlement called Kirklees, and Ripon is a separate settlement to Harrogate, but administered as part of the Harrogate local authority area. Fingerpuppet (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the overwhelming majority of people in that Leeds and City of Leeds should be merged. Wiki appears at the top of all search pages these days, and when people search for information on Leeds, they are being directed to the wiki Leeds page which is about the historic settlement of Leeds, rather than the current city. This is not what people who are searching are looking for. It is very misleading to all the people who search for information about Leeds. When people talk about Leeds, including the government, they mean the City. There should only be one wiki page for Leeds - which talks about the city of leeds, (as this is what virtually everyone will be expecting), and within that page should be a sub heading that talks about the legally non-existant historic pre-1974 old Leeds settlement. Everyone uses wiki now for reference, and the Leeds article does a great disservice and mal-promotion for Leeds. When you compare the Leeds article to the Manchester article it is such a shame that the Leeds article has been maintained by stranglehold of just 3 people, who are so stuck on pedantics of historical leeds settlement, that they have lost the real spirit of what the Leeds artcle should be about - ie a quick and comprehensive informative guide to Leeds (the popular/contemporary understanding of Leeds, not the old settlement). Can anyone please put forward what they think of this idea? Those who are against it please suggest the disadvantages of this proposal? I personally beleive having a merged wiki page, which has a subheading further down that discusses the historic settlement of Leeds would appease both parties here. Everyone gets their cake and gets to eat it. Those wanting Leeds article to reflect what most people expect to find by talking about the city of leeds will get that, and those who want to make it clear that Leeds settlement is a part of "city of leeds admin area" and who want to touch upon this in depth will still get that too. It seems the most logical and how I would expect to find the information presented if I was googling Leeds. Right now, the 2 article system is very confusing for many people, and as such is misleading.

To answer some of the arguments mentioned earlier... Obviously there are those who beleive that City of Leeds includes areas that are not actually Leeds, (such as wetherby), and as a result, we should only talk about the urban settlement of leeds. This is all fine and well, however the pre-1974 leeds settlement clearly isnt all of Leeds either - which is why they expanded the county borough in firtst place into being a metro distric to account for the outward growth of Leeds that ate up horsforth and pudsey. The problem is however that the metro district *also* doesnt just include the real Leeds outward growth, it also includes several sattelite towns like wetherby. This means classing the whole "city of leeds" as leeds could subjectively be described as inaccurate to some, but by the very same measure, using the old pre-1974 boundaries is also equally as inaccurate as it is too small because it doesnt include the outward growth of the Leeds that ate up horsforth and pudsey for example that brought about the boundary changes in the first place! As such, all we should be doing is presenting facts (rather than our subjective opinions, and as such we shouldnt be presenting Leeds by using obselete boundaries. Fingerpuppet cites the census2001 key statistic urban area map to show that Leeds as a settlement is defined and verifiable. However, the connection is spurious. By reading the full text that represents the map, it explains that the map shows urban areas in england - and displays these by attempting to break the areas down into pre-1974 boundaries. No where does it give legitimacy to any identifiable settlement. The use of pre-1974 boundaries is purely arbitary. If one is to actually read the prefacing documentation that explains what the map is showing, it is about urban areas, not settlements (and in this case the WY urban area)... :-

"Previously separate urban areas, where urban land has since merged, are also recognised by sub-divisions where possible. Sub-divisions often follow the boundaries of local authorities existing before re-organisation in 1974 "

Other than this arbitary usage to break up urban areas into their old parts when viewing urban areas, there is nowhere anymore where Leeds the settlement exists in any measurable form - so to have an article about Leeds where people expect to find information about the 'popular interpretation' of leeds, only to then be directed to the old leeds settlement, that no longer doesnt exist in any verifiable way, is wholly wrong. This is why you never find any reference or offical reference to Leeds the settlement because it doesnt exist in any measurable way, it is only referenced as a historical area now. When ONS cite urban areas and break them into pre-1974 boundaries, it is just that - nothing else - in no way does it attempt to imply that it beleives that those pre-197 boundaries are what it currently beleives is the settlement of Leeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.162.186 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No time to reply at length to the above lengthy contribution, but I must disagree about the statement that "the overwhelming majority" agree Leeds and City of Leeds should be merged. It's a pity that the metropolitan district wasn't called "Greater Leeds" or "Airedale and Wharfedale", in which case we wouldn't be having these debates. The two are different. PamD (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with PamD on this one - and why is it that most of those in agreement with a merge (and for that matter the population) are mainly IP editors or newly registered users? Keith D (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Frstly, I say overwhleming majority, because it is just keithD, PamD, and fingerpuppet who appear to be wanting to have the wiki Leeds page as they see fit, irrespective of the majority, to the effect that we are left with a wiki Leeds page that that is confusing and very misleading given that everyone searching for information on Leeds will actually be looking for information about the popular understanding of Leeds ie Leeds City.

Secondly, if both of you appear to disagree with just having one Leeds wiki page which has a sub heading talking about the settlement of leeds within it, then you will have to explain your reasons why / or list the disadvantages of doing it...

Thirdly, if you still insist on keeping it this way against majority opinion, then really you need to follow the whole pedantic thing threw because right now this whole wiki page is wrong.. a sizeable proportion of it refers to things that are to do with City of Leeds, rather than the non existant historical settlement of Leeds. Attractions like Lothertan Hall, Harewood house can not be mentioned as they are not to do with Leeds settlement (which this article refers to). Also, for example, When mentioning the economy - and Omis "best city for busines" you cannot mention this, as it refers to City of Leeds. There are scores and scores of things within the article that have nothing to do with Leeds settlement. They all need to go. All the data on tourism figures would have to go as they refer to the City of Leeds, not leeds settlement. Leeds being the largest financial centre in england would also sadly have to go too, as it refers to City of Leeds. "Over 100,000 people work in financial and business services in Leeds, the largest number of any UK city outside London" again this would have to go etc tec. If we are going to pedanticly ensure Leeds only refers to the unofficial historical Leeds settlement, it needs to be consistent, we cant chop and interchange between Leeds and City of Leeds as and when you want, because it makes the article even more misleading and disingenious than it already it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.162.186 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whups, I forgot to also mention PamD, you state that leeds settlement and City of Leeds are diferent. If that's the case, it needs to clearly be understood what "leeds settlement" is - because right now the whole article is about something that is non-existant - the 440,000 population area refers to the pre-1974 boundaries - a historical boundary with no legal holding anymore. There is no population figure for the leeds settlement.. the leeds settlemnt outgrew its old boundaries which is why they were updated. Just because 3 people on here cant seem to get their head around it all doesnt mean we should be forced to have a factually incorrect, midleading, and disingenuous article that tries to pass of a historical boundary area as being a "current" existing entity. If you want this article to be just about Leeds the settlment - then define it with factual sources, not your own personal interpretation, or historical boundary areas that do not exist anymore. It is extremely wrong, and shocking that this has been allowed to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.162.186 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree entirely with unsigned. I've yet to hear a valid argument as to why the articles shouldn't be merged, or at the least, precedence given to the wider area over this beloved "urban core" that is neither recognised or representative of what Leeds has become. From my understanding, the metropolitan borough was created precisely to account for the outward growth. The fact that Wetherby or Otley aren't contiguous with the main urban sprawl doesn't justify the exclusion of Pudsey and Horsforth (for example) from the "Leeds" article because of an obsession with the city's boundaries from 1893 - 1974. If searching for Leeds, the fact is that most will have to read both articles to gain a picture of the city, and that clearly isn't right. The shambolic mess as it currently stands serves only to confuse. To reason that Leeds shouldn't follow the same structure as the Manchester/Liverpool/Sheffield/Newcastle etc articles simply because the metropolitan borough extends beyond pre-1974 boundaries is small-minded. It paints an inaccurate picture of the city, which is why I feel most favour inclusion of outlying areas (ie the Metropolitan Borough) if it facilitates the inclusion of towns and suburbs that are clearly and identifiably part of Leeds, but are currently being ostracised because of a devotion to pre-1974 boundaries. Because of this, the article in its current form simply doesn't represent Leeds as it is today.

A poll would settle the matter. This is becoming quite divisive - I've yet to hear from anyone other than the 'wiki-3' supporting the current stance, which could suggest a previous agreement/agenda.

Furthermore, KeithD's insinuation that newly registered users or IP editors' opinions are any less valid is really quite insulting. Perhaps he should consider whether more users are signing up and engaging in discussion precisely BECAUSE issues such as this need to be resolved. The nature of Wikipedia is that it evolves, with new contributions from new users daily. If no-one commented, we'd be lumbered with the prospect of having to endure the article as it stands for quite some time, and that really doesn't bear thinking about. Thisrain (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with both the users above, who are spot on. If this article is about Leeds the settlement, then why do the population figures refer to the old pre-1974 boundaries? The old pre-1974 boundary area is not Leeds the settlement in any official or verifiable form. It is merley an urban subdivision. As such this article is very misleading. Leeds boundaries expanded beyond the old 1974 boundary because it was insufficient. This article gives the impression that Leeds the settlment has a population of 440k, when this is factually incorrect. Even according to the government's ONS, Leeds' primary urban area (PUA) is 595,000. Crystal clear examplary proof that this article needs to be merged into one easy page is the fact that even though this article is pretending to refer to Leeds the settlement, at least a quarter of it is discussing things that are of the whole of Leeds City, such as tourist data, employment data, harewood house etc etc - prooving that there is a need to talk about Leeds City, and Leeds Settlement together.

My understanding is that what is being proposed is one Leeds page - that will refer to the Leeds that I would imagine 95% of people would be expecting to find. Within that Leeds page, a subcategory would discuss Leeds the settlement, within the wider Leeds City. It would mention the pre-1974 boundary population figure of 440k, and it would also mention the official ONS Primary Urban Area of this Leeds settlement (590k).

Looking at what was asked earlier on, the pros and cons for me would have to be. Pros: (1)The article would no longer be false/innacurate as it is now. (2) The article would also read much more easier and be much less confusing. (3) The article, due to the layout of a subcategory would make it very easy to understand that Leeds the settlement is within the City of Leeds (Right now it is quite confusing to grasp what is being discussed and the diference between Leeds Settlement and Leeds City for people unless they are avid enthusiasts who have read up on it because there is no scope for explanation of this right now within this article. (4) The article would refelect what 95% of people are expecting to find. Leeds, in the understanding what most know, is a large modrn northern city, that is the financial, economic, retail and leisure hub of the west yorkshire region. They expect to find information about this big city, not find an article that is about a subdivision of the Leeds Settlment that passes itself of as Leeds Settlement. If this article was not one of the key core cities in the UK, but was the town of Oldham for example, then talking about oldham the town, and oldham borough in two seperate articles would be fine, but not for a major city - this is not what people expect. Disadvantages: I honestly cant think of any. Perhaps Keith and Pam could list their disadvantages? The only thing I can think of, is that a sub heading may not be distinct enough for the small few who want Leeds Settlment to have more acknowledgement. Maybe a seperate article titled "Leeds Settlement" or "Leeds the settlement" would be an idea. Simply having an article called "Leeds" an expect people to know this is actually about the historical settlment is misleading. It would be fine if this was any old article, but a wiki Leeds page comes up first on any search about Leeds, and as such needs to provide the information people expect and are looking for.

Finally, I also beleive it is time for the existing few to let go a little and allow other people to really develop this article into something great, informative and accurate. The existing few have had their hold on this article, and you only have to read it to see it fairs the poorest to all the other regional cities. I do feel it is time to let go a little and give others a chance - this is afterall what wiki is about.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.92.218 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

On a point of information: the current situation for parts of Cheshire may be informative here. In the case of Chester and Chester (district) the central settlement called "Chester" has a long history that far predates the much expanded local government district called District of Chester. The two places are far from being contiguous, though the city status transferred from the central settlement called "Chester" to the local government district when local government re-organisation occurred in 1974. The original Chester is unparished (save an anomalous area around Chester Castle (civil parish)), whilst the rest is parished and extends far away from the original Chester, and contains many villages quite separate from Chester. Due to some early wiki attempt at disambiguation some time ago, the local government district article was called "City of Chester" and this caused no end of problems. Partly it was because people were not clear enough in their own mind about how and where to write material. But the major problem was in the decision by the early article writers to call the local government district "City of Chester", which turned out to be quite incorrect. After a search on the web and emails from various local government officials, I discovered that locally "City of Chester" was the name used for the central settlement and original Chester (as I had suspected) and that the local government area was called Chester District or District of Chester. Once the articles were sensibly renamed, the confusion ended.

In the case of Warrington, in the ceremonial county of Cheshire, the two types of entity (the town called "Warrington" and unitary authority), the two are included in the same article and it is hopelessly mixed up and not clarified at all. There seems little enthusiasm to clarify the matter, as well. This unitary authority also has separate areas to the town, and all of them have a long-standing system of civil parishes separate from the unparished central core that is the town of Warrington. The article would benefit from being split into two, the two separate kinds of entities being written about in separate articles. If this were done, then (and only then) it could be discussed whether they could be merged together as essentally two articles bolted together with a wrapper explaining the situation.

The practicqal experience I have had with this kind of issue is (a) lumping them together from the start has not been easy, because the two different entities are conceptually different kinds of things; (b) keeping them separate involves very great care of the part of editors (not necessarily readers) to have the distinction clear in their mind, because when it is not, or when mistakes are made that result in cognitive confusion within editors, the result is a mess; (c) On the whole, I think separation of the two conceptually different entities here has more advantages than disadvantages, certainly when the articles are going through a lot of expansion, and I am not convinced that lumping them together is being done for good reasons to do with maintaining clarity for readers rather than avoiding significant hard work at cognitively being clear about the exact subject one is writing about on the part of editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution, DDStretch. Hopefully that should help people see why there are often two articles.

To take the points raised in turn.

• From my understanding, the metropolitan borough was created precisely to account for the outward growth.

This is incorrect. It was created because it was considered to be the appropriate boundaries for a unit of local government in the area.

• The fact that Wetherby or Otley aren't contiguous with the main urban sprawl doesn't justify the exclusion of Pudsey and Horsforth (for example) from the "Leeds" article because of an obsession with the city's boundaries from 1893 - 1974

Despite this accusation, there is no such "obsession". The boundaries of the settlement of Leeds are set by the Government, and are only based on the 1974 boundaries within the conurbation, as these are recognised settlements. Where Leeds has expanded into a former rural area, then those areas are added to the Leeds Urban Sub-Division.

• unofficial historical Leeds settlement'

As indicated, it's perfectly official and defined. Just because you don't agree with those boundaries doesn't make you correct and the Office for National Statistics wrong. If you have a problem with the definition, I suggest you contact them - anything else is OR on your part.

• If that's the case, it needs to clearly be understood what "leeds settlement" is - because right now the whole article is about something that is non-existant - the 440,000 population area refers to the pre-1974 boundaries - a historical boundary with no legal holding anymore. There is no population figure for the leeds settlement.. the leeds settlemnt outgrew its old boundaries which is why they were updated.'

As indicated, it's official and verifiable. I understand that you disagree with it - take it up with the Government.

• Just because 3 people on here cant seem to get their head around it all doesnt mean we should be forced to have a factually incorrect, midleading, and disingenuous article that tries to pass of a historical boundary area as being a "current" existing entity.

Just because 1 user with an account and some IP-only editors don't understand the difference between the two articles and their definitions doesn't mean that articles should be combined.

• If you want this article to be just about Leeds the settlment - then define it with factual sources, not your own personal interpretation, or historical boundary areas that do not exist anymore. It is extremely wrong, and shocking that this has been allowed to happen.

Once again, I have shown where those boundaries are, and how they are defined. If you do not agree with them, take it up with HM Government.

• Even according to the government's ONS, Leeds' primary urban area (PUA) is 595,000.

Primary Urban Areas are statistical entities designed for the State of the English Cities Report, and that report only. The notes on the data specifically say that they are NOT for use in any other form. They do not represent settlements. If you insist on misusing PUA data, then I submit that there is no such place as "Leeds", only "Leeds-Bradford" based on Eurostat Larger Urban Zone data - the EU equivalent of PUAs.

• If this article was not one of the key core cities in the UK, but was the town of Oldham for example, then talking about oldham the town, and oldham borough in two seperate articles would be fine, but not for a major city - this is not what people expect.

Leeds is not a special case, and city status does not make any difference as to whether there should be one article or two. I have already shown many examples where there are TWO articles - one for a settlement and one for a like-named local government unit, including several units that hold city status.

• Finally, I also beleive it is time for the existing few to let go a little and allow other people to really develop this article into something great, informative and accurate. The existing few have had their hold on this article, and you only have to read it to see it fairs the poorest to all the other regional cities. I do feel it is time to let go a little and give others a chance - this is afterall what wiki is about.

Perhaps it might be an idea for you to assist in making the articles better?

Presumably after all this, you intend to go through everywhere else on Wikipedia where there are two articles, one for the settlement and one for the like-named local government unit? I look forward to seeing your contributions to Chichester, Carlisle and Walsall, amongst others. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I too oppose the merger of the two articles. Some cities are adequately covered in one article, i.e. Manchester. If one looks at this map, one can see that it was barely touched by the LGA1972 - the settlement, city and borough are identical.

Leeds is a different case, like Canterbury and Bradford, and even like towns such as Oldham and Halifax. Leeds is a settlement within a wider district. If we merge the two, we're paving the way for articles like Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale to be merged into Rochdale, and City of Carlisle into Carlisle - not good practice, and effectively moving away from real world practice.

What I would suggest is taking the approach of wording like that of Salford ("Salford lies at the heart of the City of Salford, a metropolitan borough of Greater Manchester, England"). That would avoid confusion in the article, and avoid the need to describe it as a town, city, district, area, urban core or whatever. Leeds proper does not have city status, just like Halifax doesn't have borough status, and that needs to be reflected at all times on WP. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In case there's any doubt, PamD, Keith D, and Fingerpuppet are in the majority and are working to the guidelines used by WP:UKGEO. The disadvantages of merging the two articles?

• When it's complete, it will be enormous, and by WP:SIZE will need to be spilt into separate articles anyway because it would be impractical to read. Take a look at Salford and City of Salford (two well developed articles) and imagine them merged, totally impractical.
• When someone searches for Leeds, they will generally be after the settlement, they will be confused why, for example, the history section talks about the wider metropolitan area and it's constituent settlements. This goes for every other section.
• Most importantly it would not be accurate to merge the two articles as they are separate entities and cover separate areas, with different histories and different people. Nev1 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, some of these questions need a respone:

• The boundaries of the settlement of Leeds are set by the Government, and are only based on the 1974 boundaries within the conurbation, as these are recognised settlements. Where Leeds has expanded into a former rural area, then those areas are added to the Leeds Urban Sub-Division.

Any proof of this? All you have posted is *one* reference to a map showing key urban areas - namely the west yorkshire urban area, where it shows subdivisions for visual purposes that are "usually based on pre1974 boundaries". No where does it say this is a current recognized settlement. If you read the preface introductory commentary to the the map you posted, it explains this.

If the map in question was a map of settlements, then the map would rightly so confirm your view point. I invite you to show some sources that backup what you beleive to be the official government settlment...

• When it's complete, it will be enormous, and by WP:SIZE will need to be spilt into separate articles anyway because it would be impractical to read. Take a look at Salford and City of Salford (two well developed articles) and imagine them merged, totally impractical.

Actually both articles spend most of the time covering the same thing. Even looking at the Leeds and City of Leeds acrticle, it is mostly all overlap. A good proportion of informatiom within the Leeds article is actually talking about City of Leeds - eg tourism, financial data, landmarks etc. The only addition would be a section of Governance. The rest would be pretty much the same, because a merger only adds residential areas, that are not really talked about. Essentially, it just affects the population data, and more importantly allows the article to be genuine when talking about eg the economy or tourism etc - because right now it incorrectly deals with the whole city, not this "subdivision" as it is very hard to talk about leeds without the wider leeds in terms of health, education, employment, finance, tourism, and *any* accolades because they all infer all of leeds not just a subdivision.

• When someone searches for Leeds, they will generally be after the settlement

Really? If I was looking for data on Leeds the settlement i would search for that, or historic leeds. When I search for Leeds i expect it to be about all of Leeds, not a subdivision. When the government, or the media, or just general people talking refer to "leeds" they mean leeds in its entirity, a big northern city, not a historic subdivision, or the urban core.

• they will be confused why, for example, the history section talks about the wider metropolitan area and it's constituent settlements.

But if you talk about he history of Leeds and its evolution, it naturally comes to expect it talk about the evolution of leeds from its settlement into a wider city. You wouldnt expect it to cut of short then direct you to a diferent article. If anything, right now it is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr D Phillip (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is supplemental to what I earlier wrote. If one visits the local government website, one sees an identical form of words used in the title to that of Chester District. Consequently, I suspect that the City of Leeds form of words used is a type of wiki disambiguation that can now be seen to be misleading. Furthermore, I see that there are some 31 civil parishes within the local government area, and that some of these have town councils governing them. This all leads me to feel even more strongly that the two entities should be kept separate in separate articles, because, in addition to the reasons I already gavem, and as pointed out earlier, the size of any merged article will become far too long. Indeed, I suggest that a change in article title could well be investigated so that one has Leeds (the core settlement of the local government area), and something like Leeds (district) or Leeds (borough) to replace the City of Leeds construction that seems to be more likely to be a form of wiki-disambiguation which ends up being passed off as some kind of official title for the local government area. Perhaps some investigation involving asking the relevant council officers what the official title is of the local government area, as I had to do with Chester (district) would be in order?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And seeing that both Leeds (district) and Leeds (borough) exist as simple redirects to City of Leeds, I suggest that my interpretation becomes even more likely, and that one of these should be made the holder of the content currently located directly at City of Leeds with the City of Leeds becoming a redirect, if required. Youngs book states on page 797 that the area is "Leeds Metropolitan District", and that may be the best long-form name to use for the article.

I wonder how many more of the "City of X" article titles can be explained in terms of a similar slightly awry wikidisambiguation that has become just a wikipedia neolism, and which should therefore be adjusted in similar ways to those I have suggested here. Not all, I suspect, but probably some. Consistency can be good, but sometimes it is foolish, though the cases have to be argued and explored carefully to determine whether they are or are not.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I tend to agree with DDStretch above. If we renamed City of Leeds as Leeds Metropolitan District, it would clarify matters for readers and editors. This term is used - see http://www.leeds.gov.uk/maps/leeds_wb.html for an example. The two things are completely different (like Kirklees and Huddersfield, where they chose distinctive names rather than call the Met District after its main town). We need to look carefully at what's in which article, with plenty of helpful links from each to other as appropriate. PamD (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(On re-reading what I wrote, I realise that I should have said something more like "and I suggest that Leeds Metropolitan District would probably be the best choice of all" explicitly rather than indirectly imply it.)  DDStretch  (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

--Although I can see it being a fair suggestion to acheive a compromise, I'd be inclined to avoid that approach. Leeds does have city status afterall. Whilst Met. District seems to have some preference and usage in West Yorkshire, I wouldn't like to see it applied to City of Salford, where city status holds great affection and where we'd be introducing a term unfamilliar to our readers (Salford Metropolitan District "received the title of City of Salford with effect from 1974" [3], which is surely also the case for Leeds Metropolitan District). Furthermore I believe (and will seek to get evidence) that Leeds (district) holds Borough status, so it would be more properly (if it didn't have city status), a Metropolitan borough.

What also worries me is the effect this move would have on non-metropolitan districts with city status. We could effectively open the way for Carlisle Non-Metropolitan District, which again is unfamilliar to readers, if not a unverifiable neologism. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. It seems like there are trade-offs at work here: do we make the article title sufficiently different so as to reduce the confusion between the two at the expense of not reflecting the fact that the area has been designated a city, or do we show in the title that the area has been designated a city at the expense of making the article titles quite similar and perhaps adding to confusion. I can see both have their advantages and disadvantages, and I'm not pushing hard for the possible solution I suggested. I do re-affirm that the conceptual differences outweigh the pressures to collapse together the two articles into one, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Salford and City of Salford (and even County Borough of Salford and Salford (hundred)) manage to keep seperate articles, with the latter even having formal WP:GA status! Of course Leeds dominates the City of Leeds, but I think we could have two great articles between the pair. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above. One article will talk about a small subdivision that doesnt even cover the Leeds Settlement. The other article (the District one) will then cover the whole Leeds City in a way that suggests it is merley a district of seperate areas, rather than one cohesive metropolitan city comprised of its urban core, suburbs, and sattelite towns. This means we will then have two seperate articles, both of which are completely not what people expect to see, and both that go the furthest away as possible in representing Leeds. Essentially we would be redifining what Leeds is to the taste of a select minority. I live in Morley, and it really is laughable to suggest this isnt Leeds and is a seperate town that happens to just fall within the same district. It is even more insane to suggest Pudsey and Horsforth are not Leeds. Having a wiki page called "leeds metropolitan district" even further ostracies such areas and subtelly attempts to redefine them as seperate by implying they are just part of the same district, rather than part of the same city. I guess i'd better move, given that I dont live in Leeds now lol. I get the impression we have people here who dont live in Leeds attempting to define it by looking at examples of other areas and how they have been defined. Chester and Chester district are both very seperate - this is because chester is an old historic town retaining its history as that town, and as such the town of chester is clearly diferentiated from its wider region of residential areas. Leeds has its city centre. Spreading outwards, the suburbs, whether they are within the pre-1974 boundary or not, are indishinguishible, they blend and merge. When people want to know about chester, or york, they want to know about the historic town. When people want to know about Leeds, they want to know about the city, not the historic subdivision ;)

The suggestion that a merged article will be too big - can someone explain how? The only diference would be a sub heading about governance, and a sub heading mentioning the Settlemet - this would be impossibe to be larger than just a few sentances, because everything about the settlement is already reffered to in the article as it already is now. The idea that suddeonly the whole article changes and enlarges if it is changed to refelecting the whole city is absurd - there would be very few diferences apart from the population count, and addition info in the history section explaining how leeds became a wider metro area. Both Leeds and Leeds City are mostly duplicate information. Have a look at Sheffield wiki - its a merged one and it is so easy to understand, and is also short.

If people still dont want to do this I am going to start removing or referencing all information on the Leeds page that refers to Leeds City - until we end up with a very empty page, *or* a page that is completely littered with continued references saying "..although this refers to the Metropolitan District, and not Leeds itself" - you cant have it both ways guys. If you want to insist on maintaining this misleading confusion, than at least follow it through and ensure the article is concise and accurate (and resultantly ruined). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr D Phillip (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"If people still dont want to do this I am going to start removing or referencing all information on the Leeds page that refers to Leeds City - until we end up with a very empty page, *or* a page that is completely littered with continued references saying "..although this refers to the Metropolitan District, and not Leeds itself" - you cant have it both ways guys. If you want to insist on maintaining this misleading confusion, than at least follow it through and ensure the article is concise and accurate (and resultantly ruined)." I strongly advise you NOT to do this. Editing like this to prove a WP:POINT is considered disruptive and warnings and blocks may well follow if you carry it out. It will also devalue your contributions and make you less effective in the impact any of your arguments will have.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice how you couldnt answer or address any of the above contributers points raised. And with regards to making the article concise, I agree with Philip , as it will be necessary to remove all things that talk about the city of leeds, even if this makes the article less usefull, as consistency appears to be the theme here. I have had a look at the Sheffield wiki article and I agree it's fab, easy to read, and concise - not huge as some people appear to be suggesting.

With regard to the other areas using a dual system, I think Leeds is an anomaly. It is the only one that is a a main UK core city. Most of the others are either effectively sub districts of a diferent core city (salford, walsall, dudley, solihull), or historic towns like york or chester, that people *really* do want to know about the town rather than the whole city. To take walsall as the example, it is just a town, despite the wider area officially being called a city, walsall, and its surrounding areas are all districts of Birmingham in non-official terms. Leeds is the only one that is actually a core city, which has always been a city, and as a result, its wider metro area *is* Leeds, rather than just seperate towns that happen to be within the same "district" LOL. - Whereas Wakefield, is *not* a city, it is a town, and all the associated districts within the "city of wakefield" are very much seperate towns, like castleford. People do not say "castleford in wakey", but people do refer to horsforth, morley, pudsey as being in Leeds. This is why, to rename City Of Leeds wiki page to "Metropolitan district" is even more disingenuous and doesnt actually address in any shape whatsoever the actual issue that hoards of people here are having: that is, an article about Leeds, that people expect to be about the whole city, that is infact a subdivision of the inner settlement passing itself of as the whole city. To highlight the stupidity of this, using the methodology of the people on this page, Leeds can never ever change in size or grow, and will always be the same size for centuries, even if it does grow or change in real terms. This is because people on this page beleive the static fixed subdivision of Leeds subdivision set out by ONS is actually representative of the settlement of Leeds, even though ONS do not suggest this in anyway. This is why there is a huge flaw in the only standpoint the contra-group have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.92.218 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, sign your posts. Second of all, we have no need to address the points raised if you and others are going to try to use a "proof" based method to determine the outcome. Ok. If you want a proof based process, then let us have it. In which case, there is no obligation on us whatsoever to prove why your suggestions are wrong. Instead, according to well-known and widely accepted conventions anywhere, the burden of proof rests with those of you who want to implement a change from the established state that has been stable for a long time. Instead of making snide comments about "not addressing the questions" or of making implied threats of disruption (on the part of another editor), then I suggest you discharge the burden of proof that is upon yourselves if you wish to stick with this proof based process. (And by the way, I do' know what I am talking about here, just in case you feel the need to attempt to discount this part of your chosen method.) All we have to do is point out the possible undermining counter arguments to yours, and they do not have to be sown to actually apply, but merely that they could apply. It is up to you to sow that they can be totally ruled out. That is the way the processes work if you choose to be in dialogue of this type where you ask for proof.

On the matter of the articles, the two articles deal with conceptually different entities; the coverage each could be great, not the small extra that one of you suggested above, which means they would haqve to be split in any case, and we would then be back to the two article-solution. Do not be misled by argument that goes something like "the similarity of the two names means they can be dealt with in the same article", as, once again, I have pointed out that this similarity may be an illusion, and there may be better names to choose for the local government area.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

firstly i do not need to sign what I type - look at my static IP. Whether a user has an IP, or a made up user name to hide his IP is irrelevent to this discussion.

secondly lots of reasons have been put forward why the current dual format is fundamentally wrong. If people disagree with these reasons they should at least explain why, rather than just keep insisting it shouldnt be changed without giving a valid opinion other than subjective preference. If an article is factually incorrect or fundamentally misleading it needs to be addressed, simple as that. It has already been categorically proved the article is flawed, but people seem to skirt over that ;-) Proof has been shown that the 444k figure is just an urban subdivision of the leeds settlement - nothing else. Yet this figure is passed of as being Leeds (in this case Leeds the settlement) - yet it is not. Therefore this article isnt about what 99% of people will be looking for (Leeds the City) and it not even about what the rest will be looking for (Leeds Settlement), it is infact all about a subdivision of the settlement. If this is the case, article needs to be renamed to that. A link has already been shown from the ONS implicitly stating this is a subdivision "usually based on pre-1974 boundaries" - nothing more, nothing less.

Thirdly, I think it is extremely unethical and out of place for a Wiki for an administrator to start threatening to ban people who are considering removing 100% Clear un-subjective Errors in the article. The ethos of wiki is about improving articles' accuracy - yet because something doesnt fit your personal bias you are throwing about you administrator weight and making threats. If you feel you need to make such threats maybe you should explain what is wrong with considering removing data that relate to Leeds City (given that the article is strictly supposed to be about Leeds Settlement). Leeds has the largest business and financial sector outside of London - however this refers to City of Leeds, *not* the settlement, therefore can you explain why it is wrong to remove (or reference) this phrase from the wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.92.218 (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support a merger of these two articles, as per my comments at Merge with City of Leeds and Archive/March 2008. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The reasons not to merge the articles, in my opinion, have done little to address the fundamental issues with the article as it stands. The article is littered with hypocrisy, and this would be remedied entirely by merging the two. The assumption that this urban core represents what people want to view when searching for Leeds is questionable; I imagine a sizeable proportion read both articles regardless, leading to further confusion.

Under UK law, city status is granted to the city of Leeds, and these boundaries are well defined. Whether they include villages/towns beyond the urban core really shouldn't be a defining reason why there shouldn't be a merger. Leeds is Leeds! If you are going to attempt to define "Leeds" within "City of leeds", this will always be open to endless POV arguments, as we're seeing. There's no distinction between the two in any legal or administrative sense.

The ONS-defined urban areas are simply statistical constructs - they do not adhere to administrative boundaries. Also, these boundaries are not static; changes in land use can lead to a boundary change of an urban area.

As far as I'm concerned, a merger is the only option. Thisrain (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean Rochdale is Rochdale? Afterall, there's "no distinction between the two in any legal or administrative sense". Why shouldn't they be merged? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

because rochdale is a town, and the larger borough is very much a district that in non official terms are all wider districts of core hub city Manchester. People dont say they live in Middleton in rochdale. This is because both are towns. But morley, horsforth, pudsey are all *in* Leeds. Why is there this difference? Leeds is a large core city, and the wider metropolitan district is for the most part all of Leeds suburbs. In the case of rochdale district area, all the towns within that district (rochdale, middleton etc) are all towns that together really do form a district, rather than a metro area of a big city. If you follow this pattern through, dudley, walsall, solihull, salford, oldham, they are all districts of a wider big city. This is why Leeds is an anomoly. Also, take oldham for example (or any) there is a distinct need to discuss the district of seperate towns seperate to the town of oldham. With Leeds, as this article shows, it is very hard to discuss Leeds without reffering to its wider metro area, because its wider metro area are all mostly suburbs of Leeds, rather than an arbitary grouping of seperate towns to form a district of a wider hub city such as manchester. Does that make sense lol. To make matters worse, if the subdivision actually reflected the central settlement it wouldnt be so bad, but the subdivsion is just that, a static pre=1974 boundary, and as such doesnt even refelect Leeds the settlement --Pr D Phillip (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

--"Core hub city Manchester"? "non-official terms"? "arbitary grouping of seperate towns"? This isn't putting my faith in the proposals Pr D Phillip; it all comes across like unsourced conjecture, double standards, and grave misunderstandings about what the LGA72 did.

You say we can't merge Rochdale and Rochdale (borough) because of the multiple towns in the district, but that's also true for Leeds: Morley is a town as is Pudsey, they even have statutory lower-tier governance, and in some cases maintain their own town charters. Yet both are in the City of Leeds. The LGA72 seems to have effectively expanded Leeds significantly as a district to include other towns (I suspect some where former municipal boroughs). I'm still not convinced at all about a merger. If anything this makes me more opposed. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If Leeds the settlement really was the same size 444k size as the pre-1974 subdivision this article passes of as being Leeds settlement, it wouldnt be one of the government's official core cities. The core cities of the UK are nothing to do with administrative boundaries, or pre-1974 boundaries they look at the real size of settlements. --Pr D Phillip (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys I have some pics, some of which I have taken myself, and others which I know their sources and will be able to get copyright permission for the Leeds wiki page. What do you guys think...?

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/leeds1.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/leedsnight.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/cd.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/density3.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/lsl.jpg

Also.. here is an example proposal below, which I personally think makes it easy to understand the two concepts, but allows scope for dicussion about leeds or metro leeds (something that as Leeds wiki page has shown, is clearly unavoidable), and as such removes the large problems of ambiguity currently. It also explains acurately what the 440k population figure, something which arguably was left open for confusion before.

Leeds is a city and metropolitan district in West Yorkshire, England. Leeds was granted city status in 1893, and in 1974 this status was transfered to the new expanded metropolitan district City Of Leeds. Leeds has a population of 761,000 and is the economic and financial hub of the wider West Yorkshire Urban Area, wich has a population of 1,499,461, the United Kingdom's fourth largest conurbation. The pre 1974 boundary sub-division of Leeds, which lies at the heart of the City of Leeds had a population of 444,000 in 2001, although this subdivsion only exists now as a statistical construct.

The rest of the article would pretty much stay the same, altho an extra section on Governance would be useful that would discuss the administrative area. The history section would also need a few sentances on the transfer of status to the City of Leeds. And there may be scope if people feel there is a need, for a small subheading on Leeds the Settlement. And finaly the info bar poulation data could finally become standardised with other cities to including the urban area etc. It could even still include the pre-1974 boundary figure too, that way people can take in the information on the page and decide themselves wat they want to use or cite, rather than have us tell them. --Pr D Phillip (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's way too much opposition noted above to get a merger. I count at least 5 users against who each outline serious concerns or objections. You need broad agreement to get a go-ahead (no consensus = no change), and so the proposals are premature, if ever likely to be utilised. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support a merger. As far as I can see, in common usage Leeds and City of Leeds are interchangeable, and so a single article would much better serve our readers. The "but what about Rochdale (Wigan, Salford, or where-ever)" argument fails in my view because we already are judging these splits on a case-by-case basis: of the Metropolitan districts with city status, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, and Wolverhampton all have combined articles, whereas Bradford, Leeds, Sunderland, and Wakefield are split in two. Reading through some of these articles I don't find that the articles where the two are combined fail to inform the reader or are confusing, in fact two of these articles (Sheffield, and Manchester) are featured articles. This issue is raised so often that I think that there is general support for a merger, the opposition is always vocal but also always comes from same few editors. —Jeremy (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Manchester article is about the borough and the settlement because the boundaries of the two are almost identical, so is a very different case to what is going on here. The settlement of Leeds is only one part of the borough, the City of Leeds, along with several towns (Pudsey and Morley used to have municipal borough status btw). Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Which publications are you using to compare the boundaries of Manchester and the City of Manchester? Is there somewhere that I can compare these online, or at a library? Likewise for Leeds vs City of Leeds. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this map: Manchester was not altered by the LGA72 to encompass other towns or boroughs, it merely added part of a neighbouring rural district within which it already had Manchester Airport. Indeed, "Manchester is virtually unscathed by reorgnisation. Ringway, which is largely the city's own, profitable, airport is added to the city." (page 14 of Clark, David M. (1973), Greater Manchester Votes: A Guide to the New Metropolitan Authorities, Redrose).

Leeds was altered (technically it was abolished mind) to encompass other urban districts and even other municipal boroughs. Indeed, these places endure as civil parishes governed by town councils. Manchester and Leeds are therefore not so comparable. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking the old Manchester county borough was also abolished and a new metropolitan district created—that they share almost the same boundaries is just convenient. However, my point above was not to compare Manchester and Leeds, but rather to show that across a range of similar articles (metropolitan districts that have city status) we have two systems running. In some cases consensus appears to support a single article, whereas in others consensus supports two articles. I would argue that Leeds currently has no consensus either way, which is why the status quo remains. I would though like to understand how the decisions as to having one or two articles are being made, and more importantly I would like to know that these decisions are being made based on reliable sources and not on various editors own opinions. —Jeremy (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right about Manchester as a county borough being abolished too, of course. That's absolutley right. Although I have a further source that the new metropolitan district was granted borough and city status ready for when the Act took effect so as to pick up where they left off (so to speak). These were quite minor technicalities about how the act took effect (indeed, the counties too were abolished and reformed).

Manchester is clearly a bad example to compare really. Firstly we have editors from Greater Manchester active here (which I hope doesn't mean users suspect bias, as has been mentioned to me elsewhere), but secondly Manchester really is a place that doesn't warrent splitting into two; we'd have identical articles. Thirdly there's citable evidence that the LGA72 didn't really effect the extent of the city. There are other met. districts that seem to have this approach: Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle are three that come to mind, but again, they were districts that didn't seem to come encompass a variety of other towns and boroughs.

Regarding the "convenience" of Manchester's and other city's/district's boundaries, the leading article in The Times on the day the Local Government Act 1972 came into effect noted that the "new arrangement is a compromise which seeks to reconcile familiar geography which commands a certain amount of affection and loyalty, with the scale of operations on which modern planning methods can work effectively"; the LGA72 wasn't so much about arbitary convenience, but rather was a balancing act, creating workable districts and counties that wouldn't upset too many people. That the reformed districts have simillar boundaries to former ones was to maintain certain traditional borders and demarcation where possible.

The reality seems that the City of Leeds is much more akin to the City of Salford: the county boroughs effectively (poetic licence if you will) expanded to encompass neighbouring boroughs, some of which were and are quite distinct from the council HQs, each with their own town halls, charters, coat of arms, mayors etc etc. That's really not the case in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool.

Not sure if that helps, I know you were asking for more citation, but thought I'd through that in. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Abritary section break

Pr D Philip I think your proposed introductary example is excellent and removes all the confusion and ambiguity. Right now we have two articles. The Leeds page is only supposed to be about the pre 1974 settlement. The second page is specifically about administrative governance of City of Leeds. This means there is no scope in either article to talk about Leeds the whole city in its entirity, in the popular sense of what Leeds is. As a result we are left with two articles that are of a poor standard when compared to the articles of pages such as Sheffield. The only disadvantage of a one-page system is the beleif that the page will be too large, however as PrDPhilip has shown, this is very of the mark, as the Sheffield article shows.

With regards to a consensus, there are two things to consider here. Firstly, if you go through this discussion page, you can count the majority by a far margin are those arguing for a single page. The opposition has been a small minority of vocal editors. Secondly, if we keep the existing situation, it doesnt address the problem of ambiguity, or the misleading nature of the current article. Those against a single page have not suggested a way which would rectify the problem.

My personal opinion is to go for a single page in a way so perfectly suggested by Pr D Philip and all the others, and if this leads to a too large article, or noticeable confusion, then to revert back with a click of a button. If we do not try, this page will remain ambiguous, confusing, and misleading. We have to try. I would like to think all of us want a great Leeds page, that is informative, and encompassing, and I feel we need to work together even if this means a little compromise and the willingness to allow a diferent (single-page) try at sorting this issue out. --Traceylovell (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Indefinately blocked for sockpuppetry. Let's not go down this route please. See warning on User talk:Pr D Phillip. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What is Leeds?

Perhaps the root of the problems being discussed above is that no one seems to know what Leeds is. I find chapter 17 of A History of Modern Leeds (ISBN 071900781X)—"The second world war and after, 1939–74" by Owen Hartley of the University of Leeds interesting. A couple of quotes:

At least three different concepts of 'Leeds' were held by local people in this period. What we may for convenience designate 'Leeds 1' was the historic city centre. 'Leeds 2' was the area that was called Leeds for political, administrative, economic, social or geographic reasons, and was sometimes a little beyond the political and administrative boundaries. 'Leeds 3' was a region as described by the city council in its evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in 1966. 'Leeds is the regional centre of a socio-economic region with a population of over 3,000,000 covering most of Yorkshire from Northallerton in the North to Barnsley in the South, and from the Pennine watershed in the West to the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire coast in the East.' The existence of these distinct outlooks was a source of much confusion within Leeds and made the most perceptive of observers uncertain in their assessments.

...

No one wanted the new Leeds that came into being in 1974. For the old city council the metropolitan district had too few powers. For the areas incorporated resentment emphasized the difference between 'Leeds 1' and 'Leeds 2' in a way that had not come to surface while the debate was on the relation between 'Leeds 2' and 'Leeds 3'. The new Leeds would have to find ways of living with West Yorkshire and at the same time resolving the problems of internal differentiation.

Not sure if this helps in the current debate at all, but I found it informative. —Jeremy (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great stuff! Whatever the future of the article(s), I think this content deserves a mention somewhere. The views are typical of the LGA72, of course. Assuming we're in the status quo here, I'd urge for some of this to go into City of Leeds's History section (which I also think needs rewritting into something more so like that of City of Salford or Trafford; two GAs about met. districts). Furthermore, I think some of the other content warrents inclusion in this article's Governance section. I like it Jeremy! --Jza84 |  Talk  02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A GA and an FA! Those two articles provide a good template to what City of Leeds could become. Nev1 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the extract supplied by Jereny is good stuff that is certainly worthy of mention in one or both articles. In addition to the points Jza84 and Nev1 have made, trhe City of Leeds article could be expanded to discuss the civil parish tier of local government: there are quite a few civil parishes in the metropolitan district, some are governed by town councils, ordinary parish councils, and parish meetings, and from what I have seen on a cursory glance at the section of the official website dealing with civil parishes and election maps website, there are groupings of the civil parishes so that a group of adjacent or abutting ones share a single parish council. All of this is quite worthy of note in City of Leeds, and it is my opinion that it would make for an unwieldy single merged article.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So I now count three possible definitions of what this article is about. It could be about the area that used to be a county borough called the City of Leeds, it could be about an ONS statistical area called Leeds urban area, or it could be about that part of the City of Leeds (the metropolitan district) that does not have an additional tier of local government beyond the city council. These three all encompass basically the same area, and perhaps it is reasonable to have an article about that area, but I am yet to find this same distinction between Leeds and City of Leeds made in other publications. WP:NAME states that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". As far as I can tell in common usage Leeds and City of Leeds are used interchangeably. If we need an article on this area I suggest that it be moved to a different name and City of Leeds be moved here. —Jeremy (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The alternative to a single article is the embarrassment we're currently having to endure. To someone who comes acroos the page, it's likely to read something like this:

Leeds is on a river. It's the middle bit of Leeds, the city, but it isn't a city. The extended area IS a city, but this article is about the place within the city, called Leeds. You can't call it a city, even though parts of the article refer to the city of Leeds. The population of Leeds is 443k; the city, 761k. Incidentally, the city is a core city (not the urban core, which isn't a core city) but this article isn't about the city. It's about Leeds

Brilliant! Well done everyone! I'm aware there's an impenetrable stranglehold on the article, so it's pointless me going further.

I'm off to bask in some clarity. Sheffield, anyone? Thisrain (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the current state of the article is bad, but Salford manages this well - good practice is out there. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, diving in to this debate, having not been around for a while. I did contribute to this article a bit ago, in case you think I'm a sockpuppet or anything. I'm with the ones who think the current situation is very confusing. In particular sentences like: "Thus Leeds, although commonly referred to as a "city", does not have this legal status unless the wider area is being discussed." are a complete nonsense, irrelevent to the vast majority of people who would read the article and confusing. It is a nonsense because, there is no such thing as Leeds using the argument currently employed in the article. All this explanation of what is and isn't a city, what is supposedly part of Leeds and what isn't make the article into a joke at present. There is no legal or governmental construct for what Leeds is, other than City of Leeds. We can very well talk about Leeds city centre, Alwoodley, Horsforth etc, because it is very clear what they are. Talking about Leeds based on arbitrary ONS data, which in turn is based on very out of date local government, and insisting that this is correct is a bit odd to say the least. There are reasons the local government was re-organised, and part of that is that the old system no longer reflected what was actually in place!

If you start arguing that areas within the metropolitan boundary have their own town or parish councils (and are different from Leeds as a result), well that's true of Alwoodley as well as others, which are covered under Leeds. If we start saying that Morley, Horsforth etc, are separate entities, where do we stop? It wasn't that long ago that Adel was a completely independent village of Leeds, but the situation has change. You could argue that the 1974 reorganisation was recognition that Horsforth for instance was no longer separate from Leeds. How much more so is that the case now! If we look at London as an example, you can see how an area with a more complicated geographical history has been defined. This includes an explanation of some of the complexity of the situation, and an acknowledgement of dispute over the terminology. I see no reason why a Leeds article cannot do something similar.

I think that merging the two articles can greatly help clarify the situation. This debate has been rumbling on for about 5 years now. No agreement has been reached, so this unsatisfactory status quo has remained. It's time for change. Quantpole (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Quantpole and many of the others in this discussion - the status quo is clearly not acceptable, and causes confusion. In my line of work I know that many companies do their initial fact-finding research on Wikipedia when considering locations for new shops, offices etc. The demographics given, which are incorrect and inconsistent with other city articles, are misleading and could inadvertently lead to Leeds missing out on investment (I have already seen on a website documenting new possible Apple store sites that they think Leeds as a whole has a population of c.443,000). Leeds needs to be consistent with the other UK Core Cities, and should at very least include a nod to the total Metropolitan Area population on this page.

Secondly, Horsforth long ago ceased to be an independent village, and no longer has a statutory town council (Horsforth Town Council is now a residents forum rather than a governmental body), and it is widely regarded as a suburb of Leeds.

Regards,

Dan K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.99.224‎ (talk • contribs)

The claim that "Horsforth long ago ceased to be an independent village, and no longer has a statutory town council (Horsforth Town Council is now a residents forum rather than a governmental body)" runs counter to the verifiable facts. If we look at Town Council website we read "Horsforth Parish Council was formed in 1999 by a group of like minded people who wanted to preserve Horsforth's sense of community and by mainly voluntary effort, improve the appearance of Horsforth. They petitioned for a Parish Council and this was granted. They later changed their name to Town Council but this did not increase the Council's status", which would make "a long time ago" very recent if this change in status was to fit in with the time scales. Similarly, The 2001 census report list Horsforth as a civil parish, and this would box in the change in status to a mere residents forum even more. Finally, the up to date Election maps site, which can be used to show very recent UK constituency boundaries, and local government authority boundaries inclusing civil parish boundaries, can be set up to show Horsforth civil parish is still in existence, and therefore is a govermental body. There are numeraous other civil parishes which are still in exietnce within the district. The erroneous downplaying of the status of Horsforth parish arrangements is confirmed. The claim is simply wrong, and it diminishes the point the editor was attempting to convince us about.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, could Dan K sign his posts. It can easily be done by adding ~~~~ to the end of his messages on talk pages.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus for change now? Chrisieboy (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is because a number of contributors to the discussions have been found to be sockpuppets of an unknown sockpuppeteer, and hence indefinitely blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Their contributions should not really figure. Other editors are anonymous ip users whose contributions history show very few edits before a series of edits on this article. In fact, one of the two preceding edits of one was identified as vandalism (the one immediately preceding the edits on this page). I don't think we can give this anonymous user's contributions much weight, given the single-purpose recent activity and the demonstrated presence of sockpuppets acting in this discussion. Finally, the discussion has only been a discussion and no formal proposal has been made, which in contraversial cases like this is advisable.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also opposed to the merger. As demonstrated at File:West Yorkshire County.png, Leeds was amalgamated with other districts, and importantly, boroughs. In this capacity, it is more akin to Winchester, Carlisle, Wakefield and Salford than Manchester and Liverpool. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter what Leeds was amalgamated from? It's the situation now that matters.

Let's try and answer the question on this heading, what is leeds? To my mind it is the urban area that includes Horsforth, Morley, Garforth, Yeadon etc, but doesn't include wetherby and otley. Unfortunately, that isn't backed up by any constitution or anything.

We could say it is the pre 1974 borough of Leeds. This itself included areas that people living there might not think of as 'Leeds'. It also includes areas that by pretty much any geographical/economic distinction would be included in Leeds, such as Horsforth. It also, importantly, no longer exists in any shape or form, bar a historical distinction in the ONS data.

Another argument would be that it is the metropolitan borough, taking off any places that have a parish or town council (please note that legally they are the same). This would get rid of Otley and Wehtherby, but you'd also say goodbye to Alwoodley, Bramhope, Austhorpe, Shadwell etc - areas currently included as Leeds. Horsforth only just recently acquired a council as noted above.

Or we could say it is the metropolitan borough (MB). This includes the urban area that makes up the vast proportion of the city, and is also the only legal entity in existence that could be called Leeds. Also the council website refers all over the place to 'Leeds' meaning the MB.

A different tack would be to see how other areas approach it. The above says that Leeds is more similar to carlisle etc than manchester and liverpool. Manchester and liverpool are a very different situation completely as the MB is much smaller than the main urban area, so I would exclude them from the discussion. However I would not say Leeds is similar at all to the places mentioned. Have a look on the maps, the core urban area of Carlisle and Wakefield nowhere near dominates the MB to the extent that the urbanised are of Leeds does. I would say Sheffield is very similar to Leeds in geography, and that just talks about it as the MB. Look at the English Core Cities Group - Leeds is the only one on there that the article with the cities name isn't about the MB.

I hope that those who are still sticking up for the separate articles thing would have a bit of a think as to why they are doing so. Why are you still holding onto an outdated local government area, that bears little relation to reality? Why are you sticking to this over the current legal entity, when other similar cities don't? Most importantly, the article is about a place that doesn't exist, except as a subdivision on an obscure ONS spreadsheet!

In conclusion I think the most sensible thing is to talk about Leeds in the same way that Sheffield is done. i.e. Leeds is a city and metropolitan borough in West Yorkshire. The article itself can make clear that places such as Otley and Wetherby are distinct settlements. At present the article is a mess, and has been for ages. Getting this sorted would massively help the readability, and would encourage contributors who at the moment are getting frustrated by the seeming intransigence of people to help the situation.

That's it from me. I hope we can actually get somewhere, because mediation is looking increasingly likely. Quantpole (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also opposed to a merge of these article for what is essentially 2 different entities. As per the arguments above there is a distinction between Leeds and the City of Leeds. As stated on Sheffield apart from a very small part of it Sheffield and City of Sheffield are the same boundaries which is clearly not the case here, it is more akin to Bradford and City of Bradford where the boundaries are not the same. As an aside this article is already over long and is in need of a split rather than a merge. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can you let me know what this clear distinction is, because I really can't see it. What are the boundaries of Leeds in your opinion and are they to be found in any sort of authoritative way? It's getting frustrating that the onus is just on those who think the articles should be merged to prove the case. There is a very clear definition, in freely accessible and authoritative material that Leeds refers to the MB. This is not the case for the definition currently used. I think more onus should be placed on those opposing a merge to actually argue their case. What about Birmingham - which contains Sutton Coldfield, a settlement of over 100,000 people - how come that gets talked about as the MB? Talking of Sheffield, are Stocksbridge, Ecclesfield, Mosborough, Totley, etc, really a part of the city? There is also a large area of countryside, which is clearly not part of the city. Quantpole (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Police in schools

Hi, it was recently announced that all secondary schools in Leeds would have a police officer there, I would add this to the article, but the whole Leeds/city of Leeds thing is confusing me so I don't know where to put it, could someone please put this in one of the articles? Thanks.86.143.91.48 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 8 schools will have a full-time police police officer, and the other 30 will have 16 officers between them [4]. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 38 schools refers to the metropolitan borough, so I'll add something appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge the article City of Leeds into the article Leeds

The discussion of this has been going around in circles for months with the various sides claiming to have consensus. I think that a formal merger proposal might allow us to get input from a wider group of people, and then perhaps (unlikely I know) put this debate to bed. So this is a proposal to merge the article City of Leeds into the article Leeds.

• support — per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OR. Wikipedia's naming conventions suggest that articles should be named with the common name for the subject; in common usage the City of Leeds is called Leeds and the term Leeds refers to the City of Leeds. The assertion that there is a settlement called Leeds that is distinct from the City of Leeds has not yet been backed up by published reliable sources and therefore would appear to constitute original research. —Jeremy (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you're more likely to find sources that state Morley and Pudsey are distinct from Leeds, each being former boroughs. There is certainly a settlement called Wetherby that is distinct from Leeds is there not? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You could find sources to argue that lots of parts of Leeds are distinct settlements, just like any other major city. At what point do you stop? Why use former boroughs, over former parishes or anything else? 81.137.212.229 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Um, several are not former parshes, but modern civil parishes, with statutory Town Council status. Indeed, I point out again that there is a settlement called Wetherby that is in the district of the City of Leeds and not part of Leeds. Why use former boroughs as a reference? Well because of the nature of the LGA72 which created metropolitan districts - it was not a county borough extention bill that expanded Leeds outwards. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • As stated at WP:V "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". There should not be an article on any subject unless there are reliable sources written about it. The existence of a settlement called Leeds that is distinct from the City of Leeds has not yet been attributed to a reliable source. If someone were to write an article about a band or person (for example) without reliable sources that show the existence of that band or person it would be deleted. —Jeremy (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Um, can you verify that the two are coterminate? You're in just the same position Jeremy, apart from I can point to the existence of settlements why beyond Leeds that are in the district, as well as practice in other parts of England. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Morley is a town in West Yorkshire, with a market town lifestyle ... became a district of Leeds in 1974 - but Morley resolutely kept its identity and traditions. (leeds.gov.uk). ... charming historic town of Wetherby. this famous market town... (leeds.gov.uk). --Jza84 |  Talk  14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • As your first quote says - morley "became a district of Leeds in 1974"! Maybe we need further discussion on what form a merged article would take. Quantpole (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not arguing to get rid of the articles on Morley or Wetherby. I'm not arguing that Leeds is coterminous with the City of Leeds. I'm arguing that throughout many months of debate no reliable sources have been produced that refer to Leeds as a settlement that is distinct from the City of Leeds. As an encyclopedia we should not be a primary source, if other publications do not make a distinction between Leeds and the City of Leeds we should not either.—Jeremy (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. Per the Local Government Act 1972. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what part of the act made Leeds and the wider district of Leeds coterminate? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose as the City of Leeds & Leeds are 2 different entities just with similar names. If these are merged then all of the settlements within City of Leeds should be merged into a single article. Keith D (talk)
• Support because there is no such place that the Leeds article currently talks about! The merge is not ideal, but is the best solution for the problem, and one that appears to work well in similar situations. Incidentally, it is effectively the Leeds article that would be lost in this merge. It would be good to carry on the discussion whilst this vote is carrying on. Quantpole (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well, there's no point in having a discussion unless you expect/hope that some people will change their minds! I know perfectly well that "Leeds" and "City of Leeds" are completely different areas, the one inside the other, and I live in them both. But the constant scrapping about the WP articles has left me feeling sick at the sight of yet another round of debate, and disinclined to do much work on the Leeds or City of Leeds articles. I now think that because of the perhaps daft decision over the naming of the Metropolitan District (if only it had been "Greater Leeds" or "Airedale", we'd have no problem!), which inevitably makes our split incomprehensible to many readers, we would do best to combine the material from our two articles into one article, Leeds (I'm not sure what Quantpole means by his/her remark), and get on with moving it onwards and upwards to GA and FA. And also the associated articles (Architecture of Leeds, History of Leeds, etc). We need to spring-clean the template, check over the Leeds-related categories, and generally move on from months/years of squabbling. I disagree with Keith's comment that we'd have to merge all the settlement articles - there currently exist plenty of articles for Headingley etc alongside Leeds already. There will need to be some thought about what goes into Leeds City Centre. Some articles will need to have a clear statement in their opening section which clarifies that the article covers the whole of the "City of Leeds" met district and not just the settlement previously known as "Leeds", and some categories might benefit from having this statement on their category page. There's a lot of work to be done, though we've got some good content in the existing two articles - perhaps we need to look now at the framework of the article and compare it with what's recommended at WP:UKCITIES. So, although I personally believe that there should really be two separate articles, in the interests of moving forward and in the hopes that a lot of people will help to improve the Leeds article once we've established its boundaries, I'll support the merger. PamD (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry I should have made myself clearer. What I meant was that the current City of Leeds article would effectively subsume the current Leeds article (but be renamed as 'Leeds'). Does that make sense? Quantpole (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Leeds is a settlement in the City of Leeds, the predominant one, but one of several nontheless. There are several other settlements, including towns, within this district. If this merger happens, we're setting a dangerous precedent for other city districts to follow. There's no reason why Leeds should be treated any different from other settlements in other metropolitan districts, including Braford, Salford and Dudley. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is already precedence for this in numerous other articles, as has been pointed out many times in the discussion above. This would set no precedent that doesn't already exist. Quantpole (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how holding an article to the standards set out within long established core policies such as WP:OR and WP:V could be considered a "dangerous precedent". —Jeremy (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned that because this districts has city status people are confusing its position as a local government district. City of Leeds was a merger of 11 local government districts (inc. 1 county borough and 2 municipal boroughs). In this capacity it is related to the City of Salford or even better, the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale: Should Salford/City of Salford and Rochdale/Met. Borough of Rochdale be merged too? If not, why not and why are they different to Leeds? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • All Wikipedia articles should conform to Wikipedia's core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V) —Jeremy (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Having written several FAs (about settlements in the UK) I know that, and that's a little patronising from you Jeremy. Why does this apply to my argument and not yours? What source material are you providing? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose I have great sympathy with the views expressed by Pam D above but strongly believe that Leeds is a settlement with in the local government district. I occupies its own space and location and has a unique history and cultural influences quite separate from that of the City of Leeds. Many edits to the article have been made by fly by IP's. Are we to cave in to misinformed and unreliable content? If so what future is there for the whole project?--Harkey (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The local government district is quite different to the town/city/community or whatever of Leeds. We have separate articles for Salisbury (district) and Salisbury, Wiltshire; for the London Borough of Islington and Islington; for the City of Carlisle and Carlisle. This is a similar case, if we merge this we will have to merge the others too which makes no sense IMHO. It may be that the City of Leeds article needs to be renamed to Leeds (Metropolitan district) or something, but I think that debate may have been thrashed out before... Lozleader (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How many times do I have to say that there is no standard way of dealing with this on Wikipedia? There are examples of merged articles and not merged. Quantpole (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The district of Leeds and Leeds itself are two different entities. However, I think there is a strong case for City of Leeds to be renamed to something that will cause less confusion to those not aware of the technical definition of "City". Personally, I would follow Ordnance Survey's lead and call it "Leeds District", or something similar. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Jeremy, but particularly per PamD (with the difference that by now I personally believe there should be only one article). Yes, there is such a thing as Leeds, the settlement, within the City of Leeds. But is it notable? Do we have any published information which we can prove refers to the settlement rather than the administrative entity? I believe most references to "Leeds" are either to the City of Leeds or to some vague cloud that is very dense in the city centre, less so in Headingley, even less in Morley or Pudsey, and barely present in Otley. The pragmatic solution is to have only one article, because having two is confusing, and because nobody has found a reasonable RS with an up-to-date definition of the settlement's boundaries. The current geographic scope of the "Leeds" article is OR because it relies on an ad-hoc definition that apparently wasn't intended to be relied on in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neither support nor Merge, but substantially restructure both, rename one, and make them more closely linked Ok, I need to explain what I mean by all this. Having given the matter a lot of thought (hence the late response to this), I think we need to look at the wider guidelines, and, by so doing, I hope a compromise along the lines I've suggested, can be made between the supporters and the opposers of the merger. In a slightly expanded form, this is what I think should happen: (a) make greater efforts to re-structure Leeds as a single, merged article, but be more diligent in writing some sections in summary style. (b) An obvious way of restructuring the article is to use the sections as given in WP:UKCITIES as guides. (c) Consequently rename City of Leeds to Metropolitan District of Leeds as the "spun-out" sections for the Governance section in Leeds. (d) There may be further links between different ones of the various spun-off articles. (e) This (i) maintains the conceptual distinction between the settlements in the local government area and the administrative arrangements in place for them, (ii) reduces the confusion brought about by a combination of having a settlement and an administrative area apparently have the same name with the unfortunate (IMHO) wikipedia choice to name such articles "City of ..."; and (iii) also would seem to largely satisfy both camps.

  Why should Leeds be restructured so that is is more diligently written in summary style? The reason is that the current size of Leeds is 83KB, which, if one tries to edit it, throws up a message suggesting that various sections should be spun off from it to make the article shorter. City of Leeds is at 35KB, and is clearly incomplete in dealing with purely administrative issues, because it contains no real content on the civil parishes and other such administrative bodies within the metropolitan district. Now, a simple merger will not result in an article whose size is the sum of the two, but it will still be quite large and soon require attention according to the various MoS guidelines: Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb contains the advice about article length "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)", so I think we can use the MoS guidelines usefully here to resolve the matter paying attention to all sides. So:

1. Rename City of Leeds to Metropolitan District of Leeds
2. Restructure both the new Metropolitan District of Leeds and Leeds better so that Leeds is the "parent" article and Metropolitan District of Leeds is a spun-off article dealing with the conceptually distinct matters of administration. Use WP:UKCITIES as a guide.
3. Make sure Leeds is written more carefully in summary style with care taken to build up the other spun-off articles.
4. Realise that there can be, and perhaps should be, links between the different spin-off articles, for instance, the administrative history of Leeds can go in the Metropolitan District article, with references to it in History of Leeds.

So, no need to make allegations of WP:OR or failure to abide by policies, etc, as this solution represents a compromise between the two camps which gives each what they want at the expense of each conceding a little, by merely attending to the various guidelines and policies in a purely pragmatic way. Does this make sense?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I appreciate the effort to come up with something here, but I think it needs more fleshing out. I'm also still not convince that the most straightforward and logical thing is to combine the articles. The main point of contention at the moment is which areas are in/out of Leeds. One step to resolving this would be to have more population stats in the infobox. I also think this should make clear that the '443,247' population is based on the pre-1974 borough of Leeds. If we do what ddstretch is proposing, I don't think we should try to define too tightly what Leeds is. By this I mean that we can refer to the old borough, but not as the contemporary settlement. Anything we try to define exactly could be deemed original research. Quantpole (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) An addition I should have put in: I do consider that my prior inclination is to keep the two articles separate. So, if it is thought that my proposal cannot be made here, then interpret what I wrote as an 'oppose to a merger, with justification being on length of resulting article, which would then result in a need to split it again, and that the means of splitting it would be most obviously along the lines of what I have proposed anyway, which pays attention to WP:UKCITIES, and which, I argue, wouldbest be done as a reconstructed City of Leeds article.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Regarding the lead section, I have put something together at User:Jza84/Sandbox3 to try to get around the city status debate. It's worked very well for Salford and with a tweak would dispell the objections to the current situation. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

--With respect, I don't see how that lead counters the objections that Leeds is still being defined by a county borough that no longer exists. Along the lines you've suggested I've had a go at something on my sandbox. Incidentally I still think the articles should be merged, just in case anyone thinks otherwise ;-) Quantpole (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

-- P.S. Also, we could move Leeds to Leeds, West Yorkshire and so make Leeds a disambiguation page. Just an idea - that way neither page gets primacy and we avoid WP:COMMON. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I think that would be a terrible idea - having a disambiguation page for what most people would be searching for! Or are you suggesting that anyone searching for 'Leeds' would be put through to Leeds, West Yorkshire, with a separate disambiguation page Leeds (disambiguation)?Quantpole (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it reads better, but I now think what would make it better still is to use the Metropolitan District of Leeds for the current City of Leeds article, and just mention that it has city status in the relevant places in the text. I really do suspect the choice in setting up the naming scheme for these wikipedia articles has brought about some of the problems here. I know the current name has the advantages of making it clear the areas have city status, but along with the advantages it has also brought problems. Some city areas are civil parishes: 7 civil parishes have city status, and yet their articles do not use the scheme "City of..." (see Hereford, for instance). I think we need to give the current "City of ..." articles their administratively-correct names of "Metropolitan District of ...." (or whatever they are) and use the text to emphasize their city status. I think it would help resolve this situation a lot.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I'm not against change per se. I'm a little fed up with people yelling "OR" or "Verifiability" at this.

The Office for National Statistics, an agency of the UK Government states that Urban Areas (and Urban Sub-Divisions within conurbations) are conurbations and settlements, and although they are based upon the pre-1974 urban districts/municipal boroughs/county boroughs they are NOT equal to those boundaries - only where the boundary falls within the conurbation - where Leeds itself has expanded outside the pre-1974 boundaries into previously rural areas, then those areas are considered to be part of Leeds. Therefore Leeds <> County Borough of Leeds, despite what some are claiming. To quote from the 1981 version of the Key Statistics for Urban Areas, "This report gives a selection of almost 100 key census statistics for every town, city and smaller urban area in Great Britain. These urban areas were newly defined after the 1981 Census because of the widespread interest in places recognisable as towns and cities rather than administrative areas." (my bold). Now, that simply refers to the census data for Leeds (the settlement) and it seems to me that most of the complaints about that is that it's "makes Leeds small", or somehow unfairly treats Leeds, usually by referencing it to Manchester. Well, if you look at that data, Leeds is still larger than Manchester! The logical conclusion to be drawn from the decision of some editors that the ONS are an unreliable source is that all Census data as well as all other data produced by the ONS should be removed from Wikipedia - which is utter nonsense, as I'm sure they'll agree.

The other logical conclusion to be drawn from those who state "Leeds (the settlement) doesn't exist - only Leeds (the district)", is that quite clearly they believe that there's no such place as Huddersfield - only Kirklees, and that there is no such place as West Bromwich - only Sandwell, or that Weston-super-Mare is just an area of North Somerset. Again, that's utter nonsense.

In my mind, there's a large difference between the settlement of Leeds, and the wider Leeds Metropolitan District; and the key thing for me is actually whether there is enough difference between the two entities, and what can be said about each one, to make the two-article approach the way to go. This is why some settlements and the like-named local government district have one article (like Manchester, Coventry or Wolverhampton) - because there is very little difference between the local government district and the settlement, yet others (like Salford/City of Salford, Carlisle/City of Carlisle or Chichester/Chichester (district)) have two, because there is a large difference between the two. In this case, I would suggest that there is plenty to say about each separate entity, and that the two are clearly distinct. I would support a mass rename of all "City of" articles to "Metropolitan District of" or "District of" names, plus better wording for the lead section in line with that at Salford. I'd rather that we all worked together to improve both articles rather than fight over their names. Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you read what I've written I have said that I agree that the metropolitan boundary includes areas that would not be thought of as Leeds by most. However, the current definition on this article discounts areas that people definitely would think are part of the city. It also makes large parts of the current article a nonsense, as they are talking about areas not in the old County Borough of Leeds. Where do we stop? There are numerous areas within the old County Borough that could claim to not be part of Leeds. Some of them now have parish councils. The Office of National Statistics is what it says on the tin - statistics. It takes areas (in some cases ones which no longer have any formal definition), and sticks numbers next to them. That some houses are built and they've got to be added on to one of these areas does not constitute an authoritative verdict on the definition of that settlement. Go onto Kirklees council website - it says "Serving Batley, Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Holmfirth" - does the Leeds council website have anything remotely similar? And there isn't 'plenty to say' about Leeds vs City of Leeds - the latter article is mainly a history lesson, with a few stats thrown in, not very exciting really. Meanwhile Leeds is scuppered by convoluted, confusing and conflicting (oooh alliteration!) information, which is discouraging people from trying to make it better.

I am not about 'bigging up' Leeds, but neither do I want a nonsense of an article. Why are there virtually no objections to Sheffield, which itself was amalgamated from different settlements? If I was being cynical I would wonder why there are so many manchester/cheshire based editors interested in this topic... Quantpole (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise

(Adding in a section header because the above is getting a little confusing) So, if I understand correctly, the compromise that DDStretch is suggesting is:

1. Rework the article at Leeds so that its coverage would include the entire MD
2. The reworked article would be in summary style with 'Main Articles' for each of the sections
3. The main article for the governance section would be an article at Metropolitan District of Leeds that would be substantially formed from the article currently at City of Leeds

If this is correct then I think that it is a workable solution. —Jeremy (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also take on board the arguments that defining Leeds constitutes WP:OR. There was originally (in 1974) a central unparished area corresponding to the county borough. However, bits of this have since been parished (Alwoodley for instance). Ward boundaries no longer entirely correspond with the old borough, either. Also I think the County Borough of Leeds deserves its own article, rather than being a redirect to Leeds. Lozleader (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With some differences in style of description, the summary JeremyA is quite accurate a description of the actual changes involved. Now, let me go a bit further, then:

Assuming the compromise proposal goes ahead. In Leeds and Metropolitan District of Leeds the various component parts of the district will probably be mentioned, because they will comprise areas administered at the lowest level of local government by parish council/meetings and town councils (which are not mere residents' fora, as was suggested above by anon IP editor 88.83.99.224‎). Many of these will ultimately have their own articles as "spin off" articles, using the UK place infobox, and so on. That then leaves as a "rump" the central area that contains the core part of the district, and which covers some, but not all, of what used to be the old county borough, as Lozleader states, above. If the Leeds article gets too large again, then, if it is thought that this central area could do with a spin-off area of its own (to be consistent with how the other parished areas are being dealt with), what would that article be called? How would the naming of that be handled?

This isn't a trick question. It is just following the argument to where it leads (Socratic style: "We must follow the argument wherever it leads"), so that any tricky situations that may loom on the horizon are flagged up in order that any changes made now don't make this potential future issue too difficult or almost impossible to solve sensibly or elegantly; in other words, it is prudent planning ahead.

If the compromise is rejected, or if the merger proposal in its initial form is rejected, the matter is not really a problem, because the current structure of the articles just deals with it. This, though, is at the expense of the suspicion of Original Research in which too great an identification is made between what used to be the old county borough, and its changed area as exists today (in line with what Lozleader wrote). So everyone should be aware that there are trade-offs at work here between (a) removing suspicion of original research, at the expense of difficulty in knowing what to name any spin-off article about the central core area, versus (b) ease of dealing with this naming problem at the expense of committing of some suspected "original research" in labelling the central core area "Leeds", as is the case now. Any thoughts on this?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For the "rump" area (and even perhaps the rest of the city) there could be articles using the council wards or/and districts such as Holbeck (in most cases these district articles already exist). For Sheffield we originally started with the council wards (e.g. Ecclesall), and we have been gradually spinning off articles about districts (e.g. Millhouses). This is greatly helped by the fact that the Sheffield council website provides maps showing the boundaries of both. —Jeremy (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying ddstretch, but I'm not sure there is really a problem. Of course, Leeds will have many spin-off articles, but there wouldn't be one called 'Leeds rump' because it isn't notifiable. People will be interested in areas such as Headingley, Alwoodley, Horsforth etc, all of which already have articles. Bear in mind that Leeds will have spin-offs both in terms of geographical areas, but also sports, economy etc etc. If London manages to do it pretty well, surely we can? Many of these sections are already too big in the current article and need some decent editing. Quantpole (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. First and foremost, I believe prominence should always have been given to the Metropolitan Borough over this urban core that is both vague and unrepresentative of what Leeds has become - the focus/scope of the current article is certainly not what I believe the casual reader is expecting. Naming the Metropolitan Borough as Airedale or whatever would only have served to justify the article in it's current incarnation - it would not have addressed the issue as to why Horsforth/Morley etc could be omitted from a Leeds article when they are clearly and identifiably regarded as part of Leeds.

The Metropolitan Borough does encompass distinct areas (Wetherby etc) but to ostracise Pudsey/Garforth and to have to address laboriously whether Leeds can be called a city (who actually discusses the urban core?!) for seemingly no other reason than an obsession with ONS data causes nothing but confusion and contradiction. The compromise outlined by Jeremy above, in my opinion, is the only way forward. Thisrain (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If the City of Leeds had been given a different name, this proposal would probably not exist. There is a definite tendency on WP at the moment to want to merge articles just because the subjects had similar/near-identical names. Just because some articles are in need of greater clarity that is no reason for them to be lumped together almost-instinct 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This merge proposal is ridiculous. The City of Leeds and Leeds are different things, they just have some similarities. This merge simply must not go ahead for the sake of the integrity of the project. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is the integrity of Encyclopedia Britannica compromised by the fact that it does not make a distinction between the City of Leeds and Leeds?—Jeremy (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Encyclopedia Britannica is limited in the size it can be. Wikipedia is nearly limitless in how complex and thorough it can be and there is no reason to avoid the facts to make things seem easier when all they do is confuse the reader into thinking something other than the truth. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • As repeatedly pointed out in the discussions above, your so-called truth is very poorly supported by published sources, and basically boils down to whether or not you believe that statisticians in Newport decide the boundaries of British towns. —Jeremy (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Would it be wrong of me to suggest that the Manchester article Joshii appears to have such an interest in could be deemed to compromise the "integrity of the project"? It encompasses Ringway which, if I'm not mistaken, is a civil parish in it's own right. Being as "limitless" as Wikipedia is and without any need to "make things easier", surely Manchester and the Metropolitan Borough should have separate articles using this logic? A merge would simply bring Leeds in line with other core cities. Uniformity should be key.

Thisrain (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • Manchester and the City of Manchester are the same thing. Manchester doesn't continue to exist as a seperate entity, it was merged into a borough with Ringway. The civil parish continues to have its own article to show it is a part of the City of Manchester the same way Didsbury or Wythenshawe is. As there is no seperate Manchester there doesn't need to be an article for it. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 10:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Sorry, must be being thick, but why is this any different to Leeds? Quantpole (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Because as explained above, the boundaries of Manchester and the City of Manchester are almost identical (the extra bit is Ringway). If there were separate articles for Manchester and the City of Manchester, they would be pretty much identical. Because the settlement of Leeds makes up about 60% of the borough, there would be much less duplication. Nev1 (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
                • If the City of Leeds article was actually brought up to a decent standard there would be a huge amount of duplication. You seem to be saying here that manchester and the city of manchester are actually separate entities, but they were merged to make it less confusing. How is that different to what is proposed here? It's just a question of scale, and has been done for Sheffield, which is pretty similar to Leeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantpole (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having read through most of the above arguments, it seems clear to me that people have provided lots of sources to support the following:
  1. The "City of Leeds" is an administrative area that includes settlements that are not the settlement of "Leeds" (e.g. Wetherby)
  2. The sum total of the areas of (settlements within the "City of Leeds" administrative area that are not the settlement of "Leeds") is less than the area of the "City of Leeds" administrative area.
  3. Prior to the (1972?) Act, there was a distinct settlement called "Leeds"
  4. The local government for the settlement called "Leeds" and the local government for several other nearby settlements were reorganised into a single local authority called "City of Leeds"
  5. After the merger of local governments, some, all or many (settlements that are not the settlement of "Leeds" in the local government area called "City of Leeds") did not cease to exist as settlements culturally distinct from other (settlements that are not the settlement of "Leeds" in the local government area called "City of Leeds").

  Additionally nobody has provided any sources to show that any or all of the following are tue:

  1. There never has been a settlement of "Leeds" in the area now covered by the local government area called "City of Leeds", either before or after that authority's creation.
  2. (settlements that are not the settlement of "Leeds" in the local government area called "City of Leeds") ceased to exist in any form since the local government merger
  3. (settlements that are not the settlement of "Leeds" in the local government area called "City of Leeds") cover the entire area of the local government area called "City of Leeds"
  4. The settlement of "Leeds" that existed prior to the local government reorganisation as a settlement distinct from other nearby settlements ceased to exist after the local government reorganisation
  5. The settlement of "Leeds" that existed prior to the local government reorganisation as a settlement distinct from other nearby settlements is and has never been distinguishable from (settlements that are not the settlement of "Leeds" in the local government area called "City of Leeds") since the moment the local government area called "City of Leeds" came into existance.

  Logic dictates therefore that the area that is left over is a settlement within the "City of Leeds" administrative area that is "Leeds". And Jeremy, before you shout about WP:V, I note that you have continuously and conspicuously failed to provide any sources that back up your arguments (for example, anything that shows any of the statements in my second list are true). Contrast and compare Kirklees / Huddersfield, Camden / London Borough of Camden, Bath, Somerset / Bath and North East Somerset, Brighton / Brighton and Hove, Durham / County Durham, Darlington / Darlington (borough) etc. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Responding point by point:

  Regarding evidence against the merger:

  1. I haven't seen lots of sources that say this. The only thing I have seen evidence for is that there are town and parish councils within the borough, some of which weren't within the old borough, some of which were.
  2. Based on what?
  3. There was the county Borough of Leeds. Whether that was a distinct settlement is arguable.
  4. Several local government districts were merged together. These may or may not have corresponded to distinct settlements. You could also say that the reorganisation recognised that areas such as Horsforth or Aireborough were no longer distinct from Leeds.
  5. Many areas of Leeds have a distinct cultural identity, just like for example areas of London. I don't think anyone would deny that. This is why there are many separate articles for areas of Leeds. On what grounds does "distinct cultural identity" mean that it is independent settlement and where is the verifiability?

  Regarding evidence for the merger:

  1. Nobody is claiming this.
  2. I don't think people are claiming this. It's just that it is difficult to verify that these are independent settlements. Nobody is claiming Horsforth doesn't exist. It is whether it is part of Leeds or not that is debateable. With the evidence we currently have I would say it is part of Leeds.
  3. I fail to see how that is relevent, and no one is claiming it anyway.
  4. How can you prove a negative? Where's the evidence that it continues to exist, bar a line on a spreadsheet, that in itself is based on the pre-1974 government organisations?
  5. This assumes that Leeds pre-1974 was defined by the borough boundary. At that point Horsforth and Aireborough were effectively part of Leeds and were referred to as such. Why are you sticking so rigidly to this previous local government organisation, yet ignoring the one that exists at present? Why are you asking "has never been"? Settlements change - they grow, merge and so on. In 50 years time we might be arguing over whether Bradford is separate from the megalopolis Leeds. 50 years ago, we could have been arguing whether Adel was part of Leeds. It's the situation now that is relevent.

  No one has yet given a clear contemporary definition of what Leeds is, apart from being the metropolitan borough, which is backed by numerous sources. The 'left over' argument is ridiculous and clearly original research. The best we could do with the article at the moment is rename it "Historical County Borough of Leeds". There is evidence for that. What no one has managed to do is state why this situation is any different in essence from (for example) Sheffield or Birmingham. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  • • The reason I am asking about "has never been" is that if it did once exist but now no longer does, then there is scope for a historic article about the place that no longer exists (e.g. Roanoke Colony). You seem to be saying that settlements such as Wetherby are distinct from Leeds, but that Leeds itself does not exist - a logical impossibility. You also seem to have misunderstood the purpose of my second list - these are things that, if true, would prove that "Leeds" and "City of Leeds" are one and the same thing. My point is that as nobody has provided sources to say that they are true, then the sources that people have provided to show that statements in my first list (that show that Leeds and City of Leeds are not the same thing) are true, this means that the two are distinct. ie. if you can prove that statement "A" is true, and you cannot prove that statement "A" is not true, then statement "A" is true. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If you actually read what I have said in this discussion you will realise I have some agreement with the Leeds not being equivalent to the Metropolitan Borough (for instance I would say Wetherby is a separate place). The point I have been trying to make is that people are insisting on an old definition of Leeds for which there is no contemporary evidence to say it exists. Common sense would say that Leeds includes areas such as Horsforth, Morley, Yeadon etc, but not wetherby and otley. However, to use this in the article would be original research (much as the current definition is). Ths only clear, verifiable way to clear this up is to merge the articles, as has been proposed. Another option is to keep the article as is, but make no attempt to define what Leeds currently is. (As I showed on my sandbox). I don't particularly like that because it isn't very clear, but those are the only two options I can see. And yes, I did understand what you were meaning by your second list. You were setting up a strawman argument for what had to be proved for the merge. There is plenty of proof for Leeds and City of Leeds being the same - just have a look on the council website - no distinction is made there. Yet again I ask, why is this different to Sheffield? Quantpole (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have made a simple challenge. This article asserts that there is a settlement called Leeds that is distinct from the City of Leeds, I have challenged this fact. Per WP:V (apparently a dirty word now) the burden of evidence lies not with the challenger but with those who wish the challenged fact to remain in Wikipedia. If I am correct and this supposed settlement doesn't exist, how would I produce citations to prove it? You might as well be asking me to produce citations to prove that there isn't a settlement called Oompaloompaland in the City of Leeds. Secondly, this article apparently isn't about what's left when you take everything else out of the City of Leeds, it's about the ONS primary urban area, which, as the above discussions have established, are two different areas. Thirdly, the thing that existed before the 1972 LGA was enacted was a County Borough called the City of Leeds. This included what was considered Leeds proper and other areas that had not previously been considered part of Leeds but were included in the Borough. How far would you like to skin the Onion? Fourthly, if you like comparing and contrasting, note that of the cities in the English Core Cities Group Leeds is the only one that Wikipedia makes this distinction for. —Jeremy (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. Leeds should not be treated in isolation. Personally, I find the splitting of areas into, for example Stockport and Metropolitan Borough of Stockport irritating. I have a sneeking suspicion that it is done to keep happy those who prefer to believe that local government reorganisation didn't take place in 1974. Having said that, the problem we have here is as a result of ad hoc decisions being made for each individual town or city. Hence, it is possible to quote Bradford or Sheffield to support completely opposite arguments, because they have been treated in completely opposite ways. An encyclopedia should display consistency and, at the moment, that is where Wikipedia (particularly on its British content) falls down.

Citing examples from the English core cities is not particularly helpful. Only four of those (Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle upon Tyne and Sheffield) substantially changed their boundaries in 1974. Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham and Bristol were basically unchanged, and are irrelevant to the argument. In addition, one might ask why should Leeds be treated in the same way as the other core cities, rather than in the same way as the other metropolitan districts in West Yorkshire?

Equally, it is not particularly helpful to ask "Why is this different to Sheffield?" when someone else could equally ask "Why is this different to Bradford?"

The present situation appears to have been the result of a policy applied across the whole of the Ceremonial County of West Yorkshire. At least that shows a little consistency, even though it may be inconsistent some other parts of England.

Surely it is better to leave things as they are for the moment, rather than fighting this battle town by town, city by city. For the sake of consistency, discuss and agree a general rule for the whole of England (maybe for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well).

As a footnote, it might be worth bearing in mind that the definition of "Leeds" had changed as a result of local government reorganisations over the years. Technically, "Leeds" could be argued to be the former Civil Parish of Leeds. That is, excluding Chapel Allerton (added in 1904), Headingley cum Burley (1904), Potter Newton (1904), Roundhay (1912), Seacroft (1912), Shadwell (1912), Armley and Bramley (1925), Holbeck (1925), Hunslet (1925), Osmondthorpe (1925), Adel cum Eccup (1926), Alwoodley (1928), Templenewsham (1928). Morley (1974), Pudsey (1974), Aireborough (1974), Horsforth (1974), Otley (1974), Garforth (1974), Rothwell (1974), the Tadcaster parishes (1974), the Wetherby parishes (1974) and the Wharfedale parishes (1974). There seems no reason to stop the clock in 1973, rather than 1903 or 1924. But the same applies to half the local authorities in England. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick note, but the reason I kept asking why it was different to Sheffield, is that people kept quoting places like Salford as though that set a precedent, when it did no such thing. Thanks for at least acknowledging that! Quantpole (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - They are two seperate entities, and therefore warrent different articles. The City of Leeds' boundries are decided by official boundries, yet clarification of Leeds' boundries need making, Horsforth is often no included by wikipedia articles, neither is Pudsey, this seems somewhat daft as both have been swallowed up into the Leeds' sprawl and Pudsey is within the ring road. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Demerger of Pages support/oppose

Further to this, the current seperate pages follow a precedent set by all other UK cities. Further to this I would propose demerging Leeds city Council and City of Leeds, as is done with most other cities, thus following a general Wikipedia precedent. One denotes the council as a political institution and the other an area divided by act of parliament. The current merged pages are effectively like merging the House of Commons and the United Kingdom. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at a summary regarding Leeds/City of Leeds:

1. The article as it currently stands is based on the assumption that the settlement Leeds is different to the metropolitan borough (MB) of Leeds.
2. The basis for this assumption seems to me to be that there are outlying settlements (such as Otley and Wetherby which are not part of the built up urban bit (see Leeds map).
3. Because the settlement and the borough are different, some attempt has been made to define what the settlement actually is, and plumped for the pre-1974 county borough boundary, because that still lingers on in some ONS data.
4. Beyond this ONS data there are no contemporary sources to say what Leeds is (I haven't found or been made aware of any). The only contemporary sources I have found that refer to Leeds do so meaning the MB.
5. As a result, the current article on Leeds does not reflect the common usage for the name. This is why the debate has been rumbling on for 5 years.
6. The current article includes information that would normally be thought of as 'Leeds' but wouldn't be if it was only the county borough being considered.
7. There are problems of WP:V and WP:OR with the current article.
8. At present on wikipedia there are examples of both approaches being taken.
9. A compromise has been suggested whereby the 'Leeds' article does cover the whole MB, whilst making it clear what settlements are part of it (I think I've got that right). This appears to placate some concerns, but there are still objections to any form of merger.

So what do we do? I really do not think that the status quo can remain, given the problems that have been outlined.

Option 1 - rename current article to County Borough of Leeds and present it as an historical piece. This would be similar to Islington. The main contemporary information would then be on the City of Leeds article.

Option 2 - brush over these differences, and not attempt to define what Leeds is. This would include various different population data in the infobox (i.e. county borough, urban area, metropolitan, west yorks urban area).

Option 3 - merge the articles along the lines of what ddstretch has suggested.

I can't see any other ways to do it. What do people think? (Waits for people to tear apart my logic....) Quantpole (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction, since I've seen it more than once now: the suggestion you attribute to Jeremy was actually made by myself if I understand what has happened correctly: Jeremy was only summarizing my compromise proposal.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch is correct, the compromise proposal is his suggestion--I was simply trying to separate it out from the merger discussion to make it easier to see who is commenting on what. —Jeremy (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. Have changed that now. Quantpole (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The underlying problem is, of course, the utter mess of local government structures in England, brought about by incompetent governments and the committees that advise them. Another problem is the predisposition of Wikipedia to develop articles around these structures, which have a nasty habit of changing from time-to-time, like this April, for instance. Leeds is a city, whatever the convoluted legal status of it, and the surrounding area, might be. This article should be about the city as it is commonly understood. It should have little or nothing about the administrative areas, save to say that Leeds is within them. City of Leeds perhaps should be renamed to City of Leeds (administrative area) or similar. Related to this is the very first sentence of this article. It reads badly. When I open an article the first thing I want to know is what something is, not where it is. So Leeds is on the River Aire - oh yes - is it a boat, a bridge, a piece of floating junk, or maybe a place? We need to read on to find out. I propose that the first sentence be immediately changed to "Leeds is a city on the River Aire...It is within the wider City of Leeds ....". Blacklans (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with your solution to the problem if we didn't face stupid complications such as: The city, as it is commonly understood, doesn't have a city council, or a mayor, or twin towns. The City of Leeds has them. There are almost no statistics about the city, as it is commonly understood, but there are plenty of statistics about the City of Leeds. I believe if we don't want to leave out a lot of information that readers expect in an article on a city of this size and importance, then we need the pragmatic solution I described above. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"This article should be about the city as it is commonly understood" --- The problem is that your definition of what is commonly understood to be the city has so far not been backed up by reliable published sources. There are plenty of sources that show that in common usage the terms 'Leeds' and 'City of Leeds' mean exactly the same thing. For instance (to cite just a few):

• Leeds City Council [5] -- "Leeds is a lively city, rich in culture and heritage with lots to explore. More than 750,000 people live within our city boundaries and over 100,000 people come to work in the city centre every day."
• Yorkshire Forward [6] -- "With a population of around 750,000, Leeds is the economic capital of Yorkshire & Humber."
• The Pevsner Guide (isbn=9780300107364) -- "Leeds is the largest city in Yorkshire, with a population of 715,000."
• Dictionary.com [7] -- "a city in West Yorkshire, in N England. 749,000"

• From the same website [8] — "Leeds, city (1991 pop. 445,242) and metropolitan district, N central England". I don't think it counts as a reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Encarta [9] -- "Leeds: university and industrial city in Yorkshire, northern England. Population: 715,500"

—Jeremy (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree very much with the statement that "There are almost no statistics about the city, as it is commonly understood, but there are plenty of statistics about the City of Leeds". There are plenty of them, in the Key Statistics for Urban Areas census data. As for JeremyA's point about "commonly understood", well, that's what happens when two dissimilar things have the same name, unfortunately! Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of data for the Leeds Sub-urban whatever it is?! There's one line in one sheet (that I can find) out of hundreds of tables. Go onto the ONS site and search for Leeds - does any of the data that comes up refer to the pre1974 borough? Go onto Leeds Statisics ([10]), and see if you can find any information related to the old borough area. Or try a google search - how many items mean the whole metropolitan borough rather than the random sub-division? From 'About Leeds' on the council website - "Leeds is a lively city, rich in culture and heritage with lots to explore. More than 750,000 people live within our city boundaries". From the Thoresby Society - The Historical Society for Leeds and District ([11]), "In 1974 Leeds became a metropolitan district with a population of 730,000." Encarta, dictionary.com, webster, encyclopaedia britannica, all talk of Leeds meaning the MB. I'd be really interested to see if you can find any sources, beyond that one listing, in one ONS table, that refers to Leeds in the way the article currently does. Quantpole (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at maps and atlases for Leeds, UK. They all home in on/name the urban area.This is common usage.--Harkey (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maps plonk a big 'LEEDS' in the middle and then label outlying suburbs/areas. Like they do for all major settlements. Quantpole (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One line in one sheet? Which statistics would you like for Leeds (the urban subdivision)? Resident population? Age structure? Industry of Employment (all people, males, or females)? Ethnic groups? Marital status? Travel to Work? Lone parent households? Religion? There's plenty more where that lot comes from, and it's all easily available from the ONS website. I would agree that there are more statistics available for the local government district, but that's the nature of the beast. Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the basic population data. But you're right, KS02 etc are presented in the same ways as KS01. And, as you point out, the majority of the information is about the MB, (or smaller statistical areas such as wards, super output areas etc). Anyway, care to reply to any of my other points? Quantpole (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Just out of interest can you or someone please provide an ONS link to statistics about the urban subdivision with regards to age structure, industry of employment, ethnic group etc etc, because I can not find any. I can only find data on Leeds (i.e. the whole of Leeds) but none that relates to the sub-division. --92.10.195.73 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Population, ethnic group, and economic activity. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvement of article

Given the importance and significance of the article, the quality needs to be improved. There is probably enough material to do so, however given the amount of edits made to the article it is hard to establish any continuity. In many ways the article has improved, such as the adition of climate information. I personally think that the page ought to be modelled on the current Manchester page, which seems to be cobbled together better. Certain additions could be made, such as that of the city coat of arms in the info box (perhaps an historic one rather then a council one). If anyone else has any ideas as to improve the page perhaps there could be discussed here. There are a few changes I intend to implement myself. Ta. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Improvements can be made by applying WP:UKCITIES. City of Salford is a GA, and I'm working on getting Salford to a GA. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Leeds non-merger evidence

Having stepped away from this talk page for a while, I'm disappointed in coming back to find little progress on citing sources. As such, I've found a little bit of material as to what the published domain is saying (and when I say published I do not mean other encyclopedias - which are tertiary sources and so are unreliable). OK:

1. Leeds City Council want to "celebrate the distinctiveness of market towns (including Pudsey, Morley, Wetherby and Otley), villages, rural areas (such as Farsley, Bramhope, Micklefield and Bardsey) and district centres (such as Seacroft, Armley and Moortown) by developing visions and area plans for towns and villages to build their own identities." (Leeds Initiative, 2004)

2. "Leeds is a unique city made up of very different places and communities, including rural areas, market towns, outlying areas and inner-city neighbourhoods. Every neighbourhood, village and town in Leeds needs its own identity and role." (Leeds Initiative, 2004)

3. "Other places like our market towns (such as Otley, Pudsey, Wetherby and Morley), villages (such as Bramhope, Boston Spa, Allerton Bywater and Gildersome) and district centres (such as Bramley, Guiseley, Headingley and Garforth) all have individual identities." (Leeds Initiative, 2004)

4. "Leeds is not just a single place and is not just about the city centre. Any Vision for Leeds must take account of the different towns and rural areas within its borders." (Leeds Initiative, 2004)

5. "Leeds is surrounded by extensive suburban and rural areas containing freestanding towns such as Garforth, Wetherby, Rothwell, Morley and Otley as well as numberous small villages." (Leo van den Berg, The Safe City, page 179.)

6. "No one wanted the new Leeds that came into being in 1974... Without exception ... all the local authorities to be included wholly or partly in the new Leeds District [of 1974] protested, demonstrated, invented more or less plausible alternatives and generally indicated their distates for the idea of joining the city... Many of these authorities fought to stay independent." (Derek Fraser, A History of Modern Leeds, page 459.)

As one can deduce, a) Leeds is one of several settlements within a district, b) the district arrangement is verifiably unpopular and the disunity of "the City" reflects local convention about what is and isn't Leeds, c) the metropolitan district has city status - it is the several settlements that together make a district of 700k people.

This said, I'm not insensitive to good standing users wanting to make Wikipedia more effective regarding the coverage of Leeds, but I am presenting reliable evidence above that asserts the dynamics of the political geography of the region. In this capacity, and grievance raised should be done so towards the authors of these sources - I'm merely researching it and presenting it. There is no reason why Leeds and its wider district should be treated differently than to Rochdale AFAICT.

Also, regarding the idea of renaming certain articles, particularly the City of Leeds, I think this is bad, and for a very important reason - WP:OR. The Metropolitan District of Leeds recieved Borough status, so it's a metropolitan borough. This Metropoltian Borough of Leeds was awarded city status and so has the official title of the "City of Leeds", not "metropolitan district of Leeds". We should be using this title as this is what the reality of the issue is. Now before there is an outpour of citation requests, here we go:

THE QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 1st day of April 1974 to ordain that the Borough of Leeds shall have the status of a City, and that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the City of Leeds shall be entitled to the style of Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Leeds.

— London Gazette, 1 April 1974

One can see that the new, post-74 metropolitan district of Leeds has borough and city status. So where does this leave us? For better or worse the status quo. We should not be renaming articles to accomodate an unverifiable version of the district. We can improve both Leeds and City of Leeds content by reflecting this verifiable infomation, and qualifying the use of Leeds when ambiguity arises, very much like we do for the rest of England. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Refutals of the above Leeds non-merger evidence

• Having spent some time pondering over this one, by heck it's long lol!, it apears your assertion is incorrect. According to WP:NCGN and WP:COMMONNAME a WP page should reflect the commonly used english language interpretation of the word. When there is a [|naming dispute] WP suggests numerous tests should be applied to establish the name. Acording to [|WP naming convention] The first and most important test is to consult other English language encylopedia. Nearly all of these interpret the word "Leeds" to mean the whole city (or both), unlike the the current WP leeds interpretation that incorrectly suggests Leeds most commonly refers to an ONS defined urban subdivision lol. --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With reference to the 6 sources of evidence above:

• (1)This is no different to anywhere else. Even suburbs within the historic pre 1974 area have distinct areas too, such as Headingley. The same applies to all cities. The point is, the source above that you used interprets "Leeds" to mean the whole city, even when talking about distinct areas within it, because this is its most popular usage. --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• (2)Again this source works against what you are suggesting, and actually further proves the point that "Leeds" means the whole city. If Leeds only meant an urban subdivision as suggested in leeds, then the whole sentance above would be wrong. --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• (3)No one is denying different areas of Leeds have unique identities, just like Camden has a different identity croydon. The source you are citing actually still calls all these areas Leeds, as opposed to distinguishing them as places within a district called the City of Leeds. This is because Leeds most commonly reffers to mean the City Of Leeds, as all your sources show. --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• (4)Again, the source above pretty much outrightly states that "Leeds" means the whole city! lol - in contradtiction to leeds --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• (5)You appear to have missed out the sentence directly before that sentence which reads "Leeds consists of 33 diverse communities or wards and covers 218 square miles". Here, Leeds means the whole city. Infact, it even says the city of Leeds has a population of 715,000. Note the use of "city of Leeds" as opposed to "City of Leeds". --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• (6)As well as talking in a historical context, this source also still goes against your argument. It states "No one wanted the new Leeds that came into being in 1974". This new Leeds came into being, and when people talk of Leeds, they mean the whole of Leeds whose official name is City of Leeds. --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

with reference to your conclusions:

• "a) Leeds is one of several settlements within a district". None of your sources showed this. Quite the opposite infact. They all showeed that the word "Leeds" means the whole city, which is why leeds needs to reflect this according to WP:COMMONNAME and the current page leeds (which talks about an ons subdivision, and historic boundary) needs to be moved to a page that accurately reflects its context eg leeds urban subdivision or leeds pre-1974 urban area --Razorlax (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A less selective reading of van den Berg provides "Leeds consists of 33 diverse communities or wards and covers 217 square miles" and Fraser's History of Modern Leeds only deals with the city "from its origins to 1974."

The sources you cite otherwise acknowledge the existence of distinct peripheral communities, not historically part of Leeds, but that is not in dispute. They do not claim that the 1957-1974 boundaries are preserved in aspic, forming a discrete area called Leeds in the city of Leeds, because that would be absurd. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cited my sources - several of them. Have you? The point is that the City of Leeds is verifiably a district containing several settlements, not one. I challenge you to find anything about market towns (or towns) in Manchester and Liverpool. Really. And is there a discrete area called Wetherby in the City of Leeds? What about a discrete area of Rochdale in the Borough of Rochdale (I have a source)? Again, I'm merely reflecting real world practice, not inventing things to mislead. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Is it absurd there is a statutory town and discrete area in West Yorkshire called Morley? [12]? How about Carlisle in the City of Carlisle. Again, real world practice, not unreferenced POV. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the first line of Carlisle. It states "Carlisle is in the City of Carlisle, ...." What a stupid statement to make. It panders to the idiocies of local government in the UK, of which the majority of readers are probably not that interested. What is "the City of Carlisle"? To most people it's the (inefficient, costly, maladministered) organisation that empties the dustbins. Blacklans (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Should anyone think that an illustration of the difficulties of this topic would be handy, I suggest that someone take their camera along the road into Leeds from Castleford and take a photo - in the middle of rolling, untouched countryside - of the sign saying "Welcome to Leeds" almost-instinct 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There are signs for "Welcome to Rochdale" and "Welcome to Oldham" between Shaw and Crompton and Milnrow. Infact here's one between Manchester and Middleton ([13]). Let's be honest, the welcome signs broadly use the shortform of the districts. I imagine however that there are welcome signs between Leeds and Morley saying welcome to Morley? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone suspect that I was trying to make some kind of point with my last suggestion, I should admit that I can't remember if the sign maybe says "Welcome to Leeds" or "Welcome to the City of Leeds" ;-) almost-instinct 09:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, let's be clear, you have not cited a single source for the claim that there exists an area called Leeds in the city of Leeds. On the other hand, despite your insistence on a reference to prove a negative, Jeremy and Quantpole have each cited several to the effect that Leeds is conterminous with the city of Leeds. Chrisieboy (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Does not its very inclusion in the ONS Table KS01 prove it exists. It has a measurable area and population etc.--Harkey (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

These sources just further prove the points that I have been trying to make. I do not, and have not ever, dispute that Otley and Wetherby are towns within the boundaries of Leeds. However, every single one of these sources uses the word Leeds when they mean City of Leeds. This is exactly the point that I have been making all along—in all common and verifiable usage that has been cited to date the word Leeds means City of Leeds. —Jeremy (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure that I am being clear. I would 100% agree with the statement "Leeds is a unique city made up of very different places and communities, including rural areas, market towns, outlying areas and inner-city neighbourhoods" However, what I disagree with is the Leeds article being just about the inner-city neighbourhoods. When the sources cited above use the word Leeds they are not referring to just those neighbourhoods alone, they are referring to the whole city (i.e. the whole MD). —Jeremy (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, maybe I should have specified, "for other than purely statistical purposes within the ONS;" but I took that as a given. If consensus cannot be reached on merging with City of Leeds, I suggest at least moving this article to Leeds urban area. Another article exists for the smaller Leeds city centre. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see our core problem is that no one has published any citeable research in which a thousand locals were stopped in the street and asked: "(a) is Roundhay in Leeds? (b) is Wetherby in Leeds?" There may be a good reason for this. almost-instinct 16:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So in all that evidence jza has given, none actually says what Leeds, as defined by this article, actually is. I don't think that those who support the merge have denied that there are areas within Leeds that have their own identity, quite the opposite in fact. The only evidence jza has come up is for Leeds City Centre, of which there is already an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.35.114 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Altitude

Leeds is a big place with hills.

"Leeds Metropolitan district covers about 550 square kilometres of the foothills of the Pennines, rising from about 10 metres (30 ft) above sea level at Fairburn Ings in the south east, to 330 metres (1000 ft) at Hawksworth Moor in the north west." Inquiry into Flooding in Leeds 2006

"From Liverpool the canal ascends to its summit level at 148.5 metres above sea level descending again to terminate in the city of Leeds at an elevation of 36.5 metres." Outline History of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal

The Ordnance Survey shows spot heights (fixed by ground survey) of 54 m at the junction of Merrion Street and Albion Street (near Leeds Cathedral), 53 m at a point 1 km due west, 61 m on Portland Way near Leeds Met, 31 m near the bottom of Regent Street, 28 m near the junction of Water Lane and Bridge Road in Holbeck. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)